Only 28% of HIV infected people world-wide receive proper treatment.

[sadboy]

Wow.

Only 11% of African women who are pregnant receive treatment to prevent transmission from mother to child.


In 2006:

INDIA - 15% of HIV positive people receive treatment

KENYA - 44% of HIV positive people receive treatment

MOZAMBIQUE - 14% of HIV positive people receive treatment

TANZANIA - 18% of HIV positive people receive treatment


http://www.aidsmap.com/en/news/0937FEED-10D3-4224-952A-44DC9EE05976.asp

[izprince1984]

Pretty much the only reason they get treatment at all is because of all the "foreign aide" that the United States hands out while we leave our own people to die.

Then all these countries take the food and medical supplies we gave them and then spout out all this hatred of the US.

[Central79]

Pretty much the only reason they get treatment at all is because of all the "foreign aide" that the United States hands out while we leave our own people to die.

Then all these countries take the food and medical supplies we gave them and then spout out all this hatred of the US.

I don't really want to get drawn into an argument about the amount of foreign aid America contributes, but that statement is pretty flawed to say the least.

As to the statistic, I'm actually quite suprised that it's that high. And the standards of treatment vary enormously - access to the best that country has to offer isn't the same as what we expect in the first world. Developed countries are using d4T and AZT because they're cheap - there will be an explosion of lipo in these places. Combine that with the stigma that still exists in most of these countries they've still got an incredibly raw deal.

If we can't get 100% of African women onto a short course of AZT to reduce their chances of passing HIV onto their infants from 25% to 2% then something is going seriously wrong. Here's a chance to tackle HIV at the root, and we're failing. Of course, a lot of these women lack clean water and formula and so have to breast feed, which doesn't help.

I think this is a massive emergency in these countries, with infection rates in some countries at 40%. It's just staggering.

M.

[izprince1984]

I don't really want to get drawn into an argument about the amount of foreign aid America contributes, but that statement is pretty flawed to say the least.

As to the statistic, I'm actually quite suprised that it's that high. And the standards of treatment vary enormously - access to the best that country has to offer isn't the same as what we expect in the first world. Developed countries are using d4T and AZT because they're cheap - there will be an explosion of lipo in these places. Combine that with the stigma that still exists in most of these countries they've still got an incredibly raw deal.

If we can't get 100% of African women onto a short course of AZT to reduce their chances of passing HIV onto their infants from 25% to 2% then something is going seriously wrong. Here's a chance to tackle HIV at the root, and we're failing. Of course, a lot of these women lack clean water and formula and so have to breast feed, which doesn't help.

I think this is a massive emergency in these countries, with infection rates in some countries at 40%. It's just staggering.

M.

In some parts of Africa the infection rates are over 80%, so we save the child from it at birth so they can get it later?

[sadboy]

Matt may have a point, just because African and Asian nations with high rates of HIV and poverty are getting treated, that does not mean they are receiving HAART treatment or efficient care.

[dixieman]

Unfortunate as it is... but, many of these countries around the world have more resources... other  than Europe, the Americas etc... but, the wealth distribution ranges from distant ends... either you have and or have not... so I see no problem with revolutions taking from the haves to give to the have nots... oh? its becoming more this way in the United States also... the middle class needs to stand up in the USA and start redistributing the wealth... take it from the Haves to help the Have nots... re-direct our politicians... but, every American will find out... our government is not controlled by the people but, by corporations... so whose to blame? You know who you are... make your voice heard!

[Central79]

In some parts of Africa the infection rates are over 80%, so we save the child from it at birth so they can get it later?

I'm sorry, which country in Africa has an HIV infection rate of 80%? The country hardest hit by HIV is Swaziland, with about 38% of the country's population HIV+. This rises to 56% in women in their 20s.

The logical extension to your argument would be to let everybody with HIV die. It would burn itself out and that would be the end of the problem. We could do that with all disease in fact - why do we let all these defective genes get passed on? Cancer. Heart disease. Just let them die? Are you an economist by any chance?!

Fortunately, it's in (most) human nature to try and help others, and to alleviate suffering. I suppose the kid born today and who avoids HIV might get HIV in 14 years time when he starts having sex, but that gives us 14 years to do something about that as well. Hint: it's not abstinence.

M.

[sadboy]

Matt

Although 80% of the total population of a country infected with HIV may be a bit off, it can happen in a matter of a couple of decades if women have babies born with the virus and half of the female population right now have it. Africa is in serious deep sh*t.

sadboy

[Moffie65]

I find it shocking that this discussion is even going on in an HIV site.  

Have you all been sleeping under a rock for the last 25 years?

GeeeeeeZ

Love,

[Central79]

Sadboy

I'm not saying that things won't head that way. I'm just responding to it as a) being inaccurate right now and b) not being an excuse to throw our hands up and say "this is hopeless". Which is what the post I quoted seemed to suggest.

We need to flood that continent with aid, right now. Otherwise we're just going to be chasing our tails for the next 20 years and spending $10 then for every $1 that's needed now.

After Europe was ravaged by the Second World War, the US set up the Marshall plan to prevent communism spreading in Europe. Germany was revitalised. We need something on a similar scale for Africa.

M.

[sadboy]

Matt

I couldn't agree with you more.

sadboy

[Matty the Damned]

I couldn't agree with you more.

So Sadboy, how would we go about implementing a programme similar to the Marshall Plan in Africa today?

MtD

[sadboy]

Matty.the.damned.

When I  have the sufficient power, money and grand plan you will be the first to know.

[Moffie65]

When I  have the sufficient power, money and grand plan you will be the first to know.

What I said above about a rock and 25 years of sleep!!!!!

[Central79]

Personally I think the key is ego. And competition.

First of all I would have a big conference, I would get together the world's donor nations and have a televised discussion. The countries would commit to spending a fixed proportion of their GDP on foreign aid.

Then I would engineer a sort of reverse colonialism. Each donor country would be paired up with a country that needed help. The recipient countries would be studied, and key markers of how well they're doing would be taken (life expectancy, infant mortality, access to clean drinking water, etc). The recipient countries would then be matched to donor countries with the resources to help.

I think that by creating huge super-governmental quangos to raise and distribute global aid, we've depersonalised it and made it, and the people receiving it seem less important. And the process seems remote. Whereas if every Brit knew that Swaziland was our responsibility and we were being watched, and competing, internationally then I think there'd be more engagement - we'd educate their doctors (and give them back!), and help fund their hospitals, we'd give them scholarships to good universities, and send over engineers to build wells and schools. Medical students would do 6 months of their training over there. Gap year students would visit. Networks would be built... People, not quangos.

Then I'd measure the same markers every year. It'd become a national humiliation for Britain if things didn't improve in Swaziland. Whereas if the World Bank fucks up... who's responsible?

M.

Edited: As I mis-spelt "scholarships".

[Matty the Damned]

quangos.

For those who don't thrive under the Glorious Reign of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II a "quango" is commonwealth code for a Quasi-Non Government Organisation.

MtD
(Who is a queen under a queen)