I disagree, simply saving someone's life from a sickness doesn't matter, if they die from starvation because there is not enough food in the country.
It is exactly like marciovm123 says, "This sort of spending tugs at the heart strings but unfortunately it can actually be quite counter-productive at improving the lives of people in undeveloped regions."
If a country is really that badly off, what difference does it make if we save people from one form of suffering only to have them be subjected to a different form. I agree with some of the above statements that the money would be better spent developing the infrastructure of 3rd world countries, rather than trying to solve a more isolated problem. Simply making vaccines cheaper is treating a symptom and not the problem itself.
>I disagree, simply saving someone's life from a sickness doesn't matter, if they die from starvation because there is not enough food in the country.
It would matter to me if someone saved my life from sickness, even if I did die of starvation shortly afterwards.
>If a country is really that badly off, what difference does it make if we save people from one form of suffering only to have them be subjected to a different form
I don't understand. By that logic, action is only worthwhile if there is exactly one form of suffering. Surely that can't be right.
>It would matter to me if someone saved my life from sickness, even if I did die of starvation shortly afterwards.
I'm not sure if the money would stretch this far, but what if instead of saving you, the money was spent developing the country in a way that would save 10x more people. Looking at this problem from a personal perspective gets in the way of doing the most good for the most number of people.
>I don't understand. By that logic, action is only worthwhile if there is exactly one form of suffering. Surely that can't be right.
Or action is worthwhile if it treats multiple forms, which I believe infrastructure development would do.
Perhaps I'm wrong and vaccination is the first step in the path to pull the countries out of poverty.
A fallacious argument. There might also be starvation, but in cases where sickness is the main risk to life then health and subsequent economic productivity outweighs the cost of delivering vaccine. Sure, poor populations are sometimes hit with multiple problems at once, but that doesn't mean all mitigation efforts are futile.
I never said that all mitigation efforts are futile, only that I think the money could be better spent helping poor countries in other ways. Like I said, I think treating disease is a treating a symptom, instead of trying to treat the main problem.
But as I said, I could be wrong. Either ways, props to Gates for trying to help out.
It is exactly like marciovm123 says, "This sort of spending tugs at the heart strings but unfortunately it can actually be quite counter-productive at improving the lives of people in undeveloped regions."
If a country is really that badly off, what difference does it make if we save people from one form of suffering only to have them be subjected to a different form. I agree with some of the above statements that the money would be better spent developing the infrastructure of 3rd world countries, rather than trying to solve a more isolated problem. Simply making vaccines cheaper is treating a symptom and not the problem itself.