Reflection-1

HIV AIDS is undoubtedly a massive worldly problem; thus the word pandemic. It certainly needs to be addressed and funds need to be allocated towards it in order to achieve a cure, but there is something wrong with the number 63 billion. Admittedly saving 5 million lives with that amount of money is admirable to say the least, but isn’t there a more affective use for that astronomical amount of capital, couldn’t one thousand dollars sustain an impoverished African family for a year? But the money is already designated, which means that the focus is on how it is being misused. I concede that I have but a fraction of the understanding of this problem than the AIDS experts at PEPFAR do, but I find their plan to be fundamentally backwards.

Despite the fact that they have already invested billions in the infrastructure of a sustainable AIDS relief effort, it seems as if the concentration is on treatment rather than prevention. The PEPFAR representative said herself that HIV is a completely preventable disease; nobody in the world has to have AIDS. Unlike another epidemic such as Malaria which is spread by mosquitoes (much harder to contain), HIV is completely based in human interaction, therefore the only way it can be spread is through lack of education, and uninformed decisions. So wouldn’t it be reasonable to concentrate the majority of funds on prevention rather than treatment? Last Monday in Macroeconomics we saw this surprisingly relevant clip from “Saving Private Ryan” where Tom Hanks rationalizes the sacrifice of losing one man in combat, with the belief that his sacrifice would save ten others. This idea is tangibly applicable to this situation, because for every treated person whose treatment costs hundreds or thousands of dollars annually, when they die after however many years their life was extended by, if there is a lack in prevention methods, their vacant spot will be filled by yet another victim of the disease.

PEPFAR chooses to spend their time and money on treatment when they already have the capital, facilities, and incentive. In my marginally informed opinion this anomaly is both agitating and baffling. Somebody please explain this to me…