health

Global Fund seeks $18 billion to end HIV, TB and malaria

15 Comments
By Issam AHMED

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2022 AFP

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

15 Comments
Login to comment

The War On Viruses

0 ( +3 / -3 )

"Much of that difference is due to the fact that HIV, TB and malaria still kill millions in the poorest communities of the poorest countries," he said.

Very true. The WHO took its eye off the needs required by these poor countries.

Nowhere is this fact more telling than in the continent of Africa, where deaths attributable to malaria outnumbered deaths attributed to Covid 19 in 2021.

Africa recorded over 600,000 malaria deaths in 2021, says WHO

https://newsdigest.ng/africa-recorded-malaria/#:~:text=NEWS%20DIGEST%20–%20The%20World%20Health%20Organization%20%28WHO%29,the%20estimated%20228%20million%20cases%20of%20the%20disease.

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

Very true. The WHO took its eye off the needs required by these poor countries.

Which is an unfortunate consequence of the pandemic, that required urgent measures that have helped saving many lives instead and that could have resulted in much more deaths if something was not done on time. 

You keep trying to misrepresent the situation as if unlimited resources were available and prioritizing was not necessary, but that is just only your own personal mistaken opinion. Even on this article the blame is on the pandemic, and how it was made a priority by the countries that now have more room to pledge contributions since covid is getting under control.

You keep trying to disguise this personal opinion of yours as if it was what the experts say about the issue, but when asked for those experts that supposedly say prioritizing a new disease that killed millions was wrong you end up bringing no-one, which means they do not exist, the actual experts clearly understand the difficult situation covid represented for global public health efforts.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

You keep trying to disguise this personal opinion of yours as if it was what the experts say about the issue,

Seems a bunch of experts share my view on the WHO's malaria strategy.

Let's take a look:

*In a major report that contradicted the conclusions of a WHO-led malaria review last month, 41 specialists said a future free of malaria -- one of the world's oldest and deadliest diseases -- can be achieved as early as 2050.*

And

The Lancet report, however, said that rather than slogging on with steadily reducing malaria cases -- all the time under the threat of resurgence -- global health authorities could "instead choose to commit to a time-bound eradication goal that will bring purpose, urgency and dedication" to the fight.

Experts challenge WHO with "epic" goal to eradicate malaria by 2050

https://news.yahoo.com/experts-challenge-epic-goal-eradicate-223000721.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall

-10 ( +0 / -10 )

Seems a bunch of experts share my view on the WHO's malaria strategy.

How does thinking a goal can be reached sooner thanks to the efforts done by the WHO means these efforts are mistaken?

Such transparent efforts to mischaracterize understandable differences in the prediction of things that could happen as if they meant the experts are saying prioritizing covid was wrong (even if it had absolutely nothing to do with it) you are accepting you have no reference, the experts do not share your personal opinion so you have to find anything they disagree with (even if that mean they actually agree with what the WHO has done) to pretend they are saying the opposite of what they are actually saying.

Or as your own source clearly says:

To meet that target, however, governments, scientists and public health leaders need to inject more money and innovation into fighting the disease and the mosquitoes that carry it, the report said -- something that will require “ambition, commitment and partnership like never before”.

If the WHO is more realistic and cautious while some experts want to bet much more resource will become available that is a completely different thing than saying they are opposed to what the WHO is doing. In fact is the opposite, because they are saying it has been great, so great that with extra resources even greater things can be done.

It is very important to notice how the article you brought is from before the pandemic, which obviously means those resources became impossible to get and completely justify the WHO attitude of caution as correct, because it did not blindly assumed everything would be fine with the world so more resources would come easily.

So, again, because you failed to bring any, do you have a reference that says making covid a priority was wrong for the WHO? because that is the claim you made originally when you said covid deaths were less important for Africa than the diseases that were not supported.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

How does thinking a goal can be reached sooner thanks to the efforts done by the WHO means these efforts are mistaken?

The Lancet report is available for all to see.

Given that you provide no sources, it might be a good place to start.

To revisit the salient point made by the experts:

*In a major report that contradicted the conclusions of a WHO-led malaria review last month, 41 specialists said a future free of malaria -- one of the world's oldest and deadliest diseases -- can be achieved as early as 2050.*

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

The Lancet report is available for all to see.

Yes, again, a report from 2019 where experts optimistically expect much more resources could be used to support what the WHO is doing and reach an early solution of the problem.

We all know that by 2020, these overly optimistic expectations were wrong and the well of support dried because of the pandemic.

I don't need to provide sources because the claim that the experts say the WHO did wrong by prioritizing covid was you, that means it is you who need the references to support that claim. My claim is that there are no such references.

You have only proved the WHO projections, much more cautious and realistic were correct, because they did not assume everything would be well with the world and money would rain to support the fight against malaria.

Now you need references (hopefully from after the pandemic began) that say the WHO was wrong prioritizing covid, do you have them or are you accepting your personal opinion about the issue is not supported by the experts?

4 ( +7 / -3 )

Yes, again, a report from 2019 where experts optimistically expect much more resources could be used to support what the WHO is doing and reach an early solution of the problem.

2019 - - -at the time the WHO couldn't use the Covid crisis as an excuse.

Speaking of resources, in 2022, we have (lo and behold from this very article):

"There's a lot at stake, and the $18-billion target is very much based on getting back on track to end AIDS, TB and malaria by 2030,

Looks like my experts were on the right track waaay back in 2019

Now you need references (hopefully from after the pandemic began) that say the WHO was wrong prioritizing covid, do you have them or are you accepting your personal opinion about the issue is not supported by the experts?

Do you have sources showing if the WHO was right to ignore the malaria crisis in Africa, which killed more people there than Covid 19?

Of course I have already provided sources, which all here have seen.

Your turn.

-8 ( +2 / -10 )

2019 - - -at the time the WHO couldn't use the Covid crisis as an excuse.

You are the one saying covid was a bad excuse to change priorities, do this mean you recognize you have no references to say this and instead you are trying to use unrelated references? that is a big step forward.

Speaking of resources, in 2022, we have (lo and behold from this very article):

Yes, the pandemic was the problem, and the WHO and other health authorities were not wrong on prioritizing their efforts to suppress the damage it would do world wide, you are still failing to prove this was wrong to do according to the experts.

Looks like my experts were on the right track waaay back in 2019

No, your own reference proved they were wrong, because their optimistic projections assumed the world would be fine and money would flow without problems to increase the actions of the WHO to reach an even faster result, which obviously turned out to be completely wrong because the countries that funded the efforts had to deal with public health problems of their own.

Do you have sources showing if the WHO was right to ignore the malaria crisis in Africa, which killed more people there than Covid 19?

My point is that no expert shares this mistaken opinion of yours, because the experts already know your point is false, the WHO did not ignore the malaria crisis, and covid deaths have been a fraction of what they would have been if it was not made a priority.

So, as with every comment where you end up not bringing any reference of support for your personal opinion, do you have references where experts say it was wrong to prioritize covid?

Because every comment you make where you bring nothing only makes it clear you know there are no such experts, all along it was just your personal opinion, not shared by them.

Of course I have already provided sources, which all here have seen.

Since your sources prove exactly the opposite of what you said they would prove that everybody can see them only helps seeing how you have no actual sources to support what you believe personally.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

You are the one saying covid was a bad excuse to change priorities, do this mean you recognize you have no references to say this and instead you are trying to use unrelated references? that is a big step forward.

You need to re-read the previous comments, and you will understand your misunderstanding.

Yes, the pandemic was the problem, and the WHO and other health authorities were not wrong on prioritizing their efforts to suppress the damage it would do world wide, you are still failing to prove this was wrong to do according to the experts.

No, the problem was the mistakes the WHO made before the pandemic. And the mistake the WHO made during the pandemic by ignoring a more serious health problem in Africa.

https://newsdigest.ng/africa-recorded-malaria/#:~:text=NEWS%20DIGEST%20–%20The%20World%20Health%20Organization%20%28WHO%29,the%20estimated%20228%20million%20cases%20of%20the%20disease.

My point is that no expert shares this mistaken opinion of yours, because the experts already know your point is false,

Yet, you show no experts who agree with you, while I show experts who agree with me:

https://news.yahoo.com/experts-challenge-epic-goal-eradicate-223000721.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall

Since your sources prove exactly the opposite of what you said they would prove that everybody can see them only helps seeing how you have no actual sources to support what you believe personally.

Where is the experts' opinion concluding my sources prove the opposite? Wait--there aren't any. Because my sources prove exactly as I have written and supported with source after source here.

The only one not providing sources here is you.

-8 ( +0 / -8 )

You need to re-read the previous comments, and you will understand your misunderstanding.

Seeing how you are completely unable to identify the supposed misunderstanding that means there is no such thing. You are just giving up trying to provide the references you needed and could not find.

No, the problem was the mistakes the WHO made before the pandemic.

Then why do you mention the covid deaths as proof of the mistake? also none of your sources say the WHO made any mistake in the support they give to the fight against infectious diseases, they said the goal could be reached sooner because more efforts would be possible, and that wa demonstrated completely wrong on their part. None of your sources say the WHO ignored the problem on the opposite they say it was a priority.

So once again the source you bring completely contradict what you say about the note.

Yet, you show no experts who agree with you, while I show experts who agree with me:

My point is that no experts agree with you, and you bringing experts that explicitly contradict you (as you are even unable to argument how this is not the case) actually support this conclusion without any problem.

Where is the experts' opinion concluding my sources prove the opposite?

Are you confused? your source never say the WHO neglected the problem, nor that covid was an invalid priority, not even one of them say so. In fact their disagreement was based precisely in expecting more funding to be possible, something that we all know was completely wrong, your sources prove the WHO was right on making conservative predictions instead of assuming money would rain to solve the problem.

So, your sources are the ones proving that the WHO was right and the experts disagreeing and making much more optimistic predictions were wrong. So you are proved wrong by your own sources.

This is terribly easy to prove the moment you fail to make even one argument to disprove these clear arguments against your criticism.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Seeing how you are completely unable to identify the supposed misunderstanding that means there is no such thing. You are just giving up trying to provide the references you needed and could not find.

It is extremely easy to identify where the misunderstanding is, that is for sure!

And to cut to the chase, without even reading your usual blame-the-other-poster diatribe, we see you provide no sources to support whatever you are trying to say or deny or deflect, and in the end, it is just your usual pointing the finger and failing to provide a cogent, fact-supported argument as would be needed by a layman.

Again, in short--no sources, no validity.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

It is extremely easy to identify where the misunderstanding is, that is for sure!

But yet again you are unable to do this very simple thing, which means there is no misunderstanding, just you failing to provide the references you said supported your personal and biased point of view.

without even reading your... 

This is a very honest recognition of your problem, you don't read what you quote to criticize, you don't read the references you bring (and that is why they end up proving the opposite of what you want to use them) you don't read the arguments that defeat your beliefs, that is why you can't do anything about them.

If someone demonstrate that what you say is wrong, and you are unable to even read why, it is completely understandable you can't argument how you are right, you never addressed the arguments that disprove you, so you end up accepting you are wrong and can't defend your original position. Can't even make an effort to do it.

In short, your own sources disprove you, refusing to read how it was easy to prove it do not make the argument disappear.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

@painkiller

Where in the article does it say that the experts accuse the WHO of taking "its eye off the needs required by these poor countries"? (your accusation)

Rather, those experts describe WHO's approach as "slogging on with steadily reducing malaria cases." That opinion appears to be vastly different from yours. It doesn't indicate a lack of commitment. Rather, their argument is in favor of a more intensive and speedier push based on a deadline rather than the WHO's gloomier assessment that malaria will take a considerable amount of time to eradicate.

Definitely a problem of interpretation here.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites