![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rfmcdonaldOver at GNXP, Arcane argues that current high levels of funding to HIV/AIDS-related programs--funding to victims, research into treatment--are excessively high and should be reduced. Referring to Michael Fumento's article "When Is Enough Enough?" at Tech Central Station, Arcane goes on to ask why the United States--and presumably, by extension, the rest of the world--invests such a large amount of funding into HIV/AIDS.
That's a good question. I can think of a few reasons.
1. Because research into HIV/AIDS has proven extraordinarily fruitful. Without the HIV/AIDS epidemic to spur research, it's open to question whether the workings of the human immune system would be known as well as they are now, or whether the potential for retroviruses to wreak havoc on the human organism would be recognized. HIV/AIDS research has plenty of spinoffs.
2. Because HIV/AIDS is a new epidemiological phenomenon. As I wrote back in August, we were fortunate in that HIV and AIDS appeared at a time when medical science could begin to understand how the disease worked and how its spread could be controlled. Before the late 1970s, the idea of a retrovirus that could infect humans and destroy the immune system from the inside-out would have seemed science-fictional. The idea of new infectious diseases wasn't taken seriously. Throughly understanding HIV/AIDS as both an epidemiological phenomenon and a sociological phenomenon is a good way to prevent recurrences.
3. Because, without expensive new treatments, HIV/AIDS is almost uniformly fatal. Yes, Parkinson's disease, prostate cancer, and diabetes are all serious diseases. Yes, without timely and appropriate treatment, you will die. Screening programs exist for these diseases, which, if caught early enough, can be treated, so sharply reducing mortality and general human suffering. Unless you're lucky enough to belong to the small minorities of people who are either immune to HIV or who is a long-term non-progressor, though, without timely and appropriate treatment you're likely to die a decade after infection. This brings us to my next point.
4. Because treating HIV/AIDS is expensive. As one would expect, it's expensive to treat a new disease. Anti-cancer drugs represent a relatively mature technology; drugs designed to prevent the replicate of retroviruses and to bolster the immune system are relatively new. In rich countries, it would be difficult for someone to acquire even anti-cancer drugs with their own currency, and purchasing anti-HIV/AIDS drugs would be next to impossible. The problem becomes still more difficult in poor countries where the cost of an anti-HIV/AIDS regimen can easily exceed GDP per capita.
5. Because HIV/AIDS affects disproportionately the young and the active. In an era when pop-demography has become all the rage, the impact of a disease which is almost uniformly fatal and affects mainly young, active, and urban populations on everything from economic growth to social stability becomes obvious. In areas like southern Africa where HIV/AIDS has become pandemic, or like Eurasia where collapsing fertility rates have decreased the numbers of the young, it can have a very serious impact across the board. (More on Eurasia later today.)
I agree with Fumento in his original article, and with Arcane, that other diseases are underfunded in comparison to HIV/AIDS. It is, however, a fallacy to assume that the only way to redress the comparative imbalance is to reduce HIV/AIDS funding. A better solution for all might be to increase funding across the board.
Incidentally, the Ugandan model of AIDS prevention appears not to be working as its proponents claim. Last month, some fuss occurred when Uganda's National Guidance and Empowerment Network released the results of a survey of which surveyed 53 of the country's 56 districts, suggesting that 17% of the adult population was infected, quadruple the official rate of 4.1%. Uganda's figures on HIV seroprevalence are based on testing of pregnant women at government maternity centres. How accurate are these figures? Not very.
That's better than one-quarter of the population, but not much. Even if you manage to encourage people to reduce their number of sexual partners, without condom use the chances of contracting HIV aren't necessarily much reduced. Who's safer: Someone who has a single encounter with each of ten people of unknown serostatus over the space of a year using condoms, or someone who has ten unprotected encounters in the same time period with someone of unknown status? Abstinence might well be a good ideal to encounter, but it surely cannot be the only ideal.
That's a good question. I can think of a few reasons.
1. Because research into HIV/AIDS has proven extraordinarily fruitful. Without the HIV/AIDS epidemic to spur research, it's open to question whether the workings of the human immune system would be known as well as they are now, or whether the potential for retroviruses to wreak havoc on the human organism would be recognized. HIV/AIDS research has plenty of spinoffs.
2. Because HIV/AIDS is a new epidemiological phenomenon. As I wrote back in August, we were fortunate in that HIV and AIDS appeared at a time when medical science could begin to understand how the disease worked and how its spread could be controlled. Before the late 1970s, the idea of a retrovirus that could infect humans and destroy the immune system from the inside-out would have seemed science-fictional. The idea of new infectious diseases wasn't taken seriously. Throughly understanding HIV/AIDS as both an epidemiological phenomenon and a sociological phenomenon is a good way to prevent recurrences.
3. Because, without expensive new treatments, HIV/AIDS is almost uniformly fatal. Yes, Parkinson's disease, prostate cancer, and diabetes are all serious diseases. Yes, without timely and appropriate treatment, you will die. Screening programs exist for these diseases, which, if caught early enough, can be treated, so sharply reducing mortality and general human suffering. Unless you're lucky enough to belong to the small minorities of people who are either immune to HIV or who is a long-term non-progressor, though, without timely and appropriate treatment you're likely to die a decade after infection. This brings us to my next point.
4. Because treating HIV/AIDS is expensive. As one would expect, it's expensive to treat a new disease. Anti-cancer drugs represent a relatively mature technology; drugs designed to prevent the replicate of retroviruses and to bolster the immune system are relatively new. In rich countries, it would be difficult for someone to acquire even anti-cancer drugs with their own currency, and purchasing anti-HIV/AIDS drugs would be next to impossible. The problem becomes still more difficult in poor countries where the cost of an anti-HIV/AIDS regimen can easily exceed GDP per capita.
5. Because HIV/AIDS affects disproportionately the young and the active. In an era when pop-demography has become all the rage, the impact of a disease which is almost uniformly fatal and affects mainly young, active, and urban populations on everything from economic growth to social stability becomes obvious. In areas like southern Africa where HIV/AIDS has become pandemic, or like Eurasia where collapsing fertility rates have decreased the numbers of the young, it can have a very serious impact across the board. (More on Eurasia later today.)
I agree with Fumento in his original article, and with Arcane, that other diseases are underfunded in comparison to HIV/AIDS. It is, however, a fallacy to assume that the only way to redress the comparative imbalance is to reduce HIV/AIDS funding. A better solution for all might be to increase funding across the board.
Incidentally, the Ugandan model of AIDS prevention appears not to be working as its proponents claim. Last month, some fuss occurred when Uganda's National Guidance and Empowerment Network released the results of a survey of which surveyed 53 of the country's 56 districts, suggesting that 17% of the adult population was infected, quadruple the official rate of 4.1%. Uganda's figures on HIV seroprevalence are based on testing of pregnant women at government maternity centres. How accurate are these figures? Not very.
Beatrice Were, head of HIV/Aids in Uganda for Action Aid, agreed the [figure of 17.1%] was too high, but she said the official measurement overlooked women unable to reach maternity clinics because of poverty, remoteness or the war in the north. "I would say the infection rate is between 10 and 12%."
That's better than one-quarter of the population, but not much. Even if you manage to encourage people to reduce their number of sexual partners, without condom use the chances of contracting HIV aren't necessarily much reduced. Who's safer: Someone who has a single encounter with each of ten people of unknown serostatus over the space of a year using condoms, or someone who has ten unprotected encounters in the same time period with someone of unknown status? Abstinence might well be a good ideal to encounter, but it surely cannot be the only ideal.
