Africans with HIV are hugely negative for world utility. We should want them dead as soon as possible, especially if it can be accomplished naturally. The effective altruist case for cutting off their aids meds is wildly correct.
I hope the EU doesn’t make the same mistake but they are a bunch of stagnation socialists.
Co-sign; but if evidence arises that they do clearly know (seems likely, now that PEPFAR has made the NYT front page - no doubt in no small part due to this post), curious how far you plan to update against this prior? “The only reason they’re cutting it is likely that they haven’t heard about it […] Being against kids dying isn’t a partisan issue.”
I worry that the NYT front page might not have helped it. This not the sort of thing voters like (unless they've invested some time to learn about it, which no one does). So I worry that the more attention it gets, the less chance it has of sticking around.
>PEPFAR has been criticized for having a negative impact on the health systems in regions receiving its funding through its recruitment practices. Although Congress made attempts to limit its impact by prohibiting "topping off" salaries and limiting funding for healthcare worker training (thereby eliminating per diems as a method of augmenting salaries), PEPFAR funded programs effectively paid its local staff up to a hundred times more than that of the local healthcare structure.
>Rather than strictly through salaries, program staff received benefits such as housing and education subsidies. Countries, already stressed by the number of trained physicians and nurses emigrating to western nations, have seen the presence of PEPFAR programs significantly decrease the number of skilled medical professionals willing to work within the domestic healthcare infrastructure. As a result, the overall health of these communities are placed in jeopardy, but funds, physicians, and nurses are diverted to combat HIV/AIDS exclusively within the framework of PEPFAR.
Do you think this is a constructive criticism? (of course i don't agree with the funding delay, especially if it's a program that is currently actively saving lifes)
I'd be interested in seeing where this is from. But even if there are a few worries at the margins, you don't cut off funding to something that has saved 25 million people.
It's hard to know how much of an issue this is without significantly more information. But it seems unlikely that it outweighs even 0.1% of PEPFAR's benefits, right?
People who are concerned about where their tax money goes prefer it being used as productively as possible.
As for diseases, a teaspoon of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Focusing on HIV/AIDS treatment does save lives, but also means perpetually treating a population that does not keep itself from being infected with HIV. Feed a man a fish, feed him for a day...
Well PEPFAR also stops transmission. And if you want money to be used productively, then funnel it to the most successful government program in my lifetime.
Go ahead. The point of Nato is to check Russia, and it isn't exactly serving it's purpose now. If we spent half as much but directly on Ukraine we'd be using taxes a lot more effectively.
Matthew, I think the European EAs shall begin a campaign for the EU to replace the US in this.
Africans with HIV are hugely negative for world utility. We should want them dead as soon as possible, especially if it can be accomplished naturally. The effective altruist case for cutting off their aids meds is wildly correct.
I hope the EU doesn’t make the same mistake but they are a bunch of stagnation socialists.
I have written a proposal for a letter to the EU commission president here:
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/CCHwPXCTRNKdnyYbk/the-european-union-shall-replace-the-united-states-in
You should write to your Congresspeople, since you elect them.
You can find your Rep and their contact info at this page: https://www.house.gov/representatives/find-your-representative
and your Senators and their contact info at this one: https://www.senate.gov/senators/senators-contact.htm
Loved and restacked as soon as I could! Love you, stickman! Keep up the good work!
Co-sign; but if evidence arises that they do clearly know (seems likely, now that PEPFAR has made the NYT front page - no doubt in no small part due to this post), curious how far you plan to update against this prior? “The only reason they’re cutting it is likely that they haven’t heard about it […] Being against kids dying isn’t a partisan issue.”
I worry that the NYT front page might not have helped it. This not the sort of thing voters like (unless they've invested some time to learn about it, which no one does). So I worry that the more attention it gets, the less chance it has of sticking around.
I would update in favor of them being worse than I thought.
Russell, latest reports are that this was indeed an oversight which is being fixed, so do you plan to update against any priors yourself?
>PEPFAR has been criticized for having a negative impact on the health systems in regions receiving its funding through its recruitment practices. Although Congress made attempts to limit its impact by prohibiting "topping off" salaries and limiting funding for healthcare worker training (thereby eliminating per diems as a method of augmenting salaries), PEPFAR funded programs effectively paid its local staff up to a hundred times more than that of the local healthcare structure.
>Rather than strictly through salaries, program staff received benefits such as housing and education subsidies. Countries, already stressed by the number of trained physicians and nurses emigrating to western nations, have seen the presence of PEPFAR programs significantly decrease the number of skilled medical professionals willing to work within the domestic healthcare infrastructure. As a result, the overall health of these communities are placed in jeopardy, but funds, physicians, and nurses are diverted to combat HIV/AIDS exclusively within the framework of PEPFAR.
Do you think this is a constructive criticism? (of course i don't agree with the funding delay, especially if it's a program that is currently actively saving lifes)
I'd be interested in seeing where this is from. But even if there are a few worries at the margins, you don't cut off funding to something that has saved 25 million people.
it's directly from the wikipedia article about PEPFAR, criticism=> recruitment of locals
the first paragraph is sourced to a book from 2007.
[60]Garrett, Laurie. 2007. The Challenge of Global Health. Foreign Affairs 86 (1):14-38.
The graph sort of speaks for itself, doesn't it?
It's hard to know how much of an issue this is without significantly more information. But it seems unlikely that it outweighs even 0.1% of PEPFAR's benefits, right?
Could you also send where you read this from?
People who are concerned about where their tax money goes prefer it being used as productively as possible.
As for diseases, a teaspoon of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Focusing on HIV/AIDS treatment does save lives, but also means perpetually treating a population that does not keep itself from being infected with HIV. Feed a man a fish, feed him for a day...
Well PEPFAR also stops transmission. And if you want money to be used productively, then funnel it to the most successful government program in my lifetime.
Successful at increasing the population of poor Africans that aids themselves?
You don’t get to increase the population of poor Africans and call yourself and “effective altruist”
Lol. If that were true, budget Hawks wouldn't love military spending.
Watch the supposed peacenik liberal scream and cry when you suggest lowering NATO payments.
Go ahead. The point of Nato is to check Russia, and it isn't exactly serving it's purpose now. If we spent half as much but directly on Ukraine we'd be using taxes a lot more effectively.
I don't understand why private charities can't pick many of these cases. The structure is in place, just change the funding source.
https://x.com/cgtnamerica/status/1884379961626165545
I think PEPFAR is saved if this is right. Unfortunately I cannot find the original memo it refers to.
This just frees up more money for shrimp welfare (aka the best charity).