New York Times on the Web Forums Science

Missile Defense

Technology has always found its greatest consumer in a nation's war and defense efforts. Since the last attempts at a "Star Wars" defense system, has technology changed considerably enough to make the latest Missile Defense initiatives more successful? Can such an application of science be successful? Is a militarized space inevitable, necessary or impossible?

Read Debates, a new Web-only feature culled from Readers' Opinions, published every Thursday.

rshow55 - 11:18am May 1, 2003 EST (# 11447 of 11500)
Can we do a better job of finding truth? YES. Click "rshow55" for some things Lchic and I have done and worked for on this thread.

There was a stunningly good display THE EPIDEMIC SCORECARD by Howard Markel and Stephen Doyle in yesterday's OpEd.

And two wonderful editorials, The Cost of Saars http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/01/opinion/01THU3.html and AIDS and the Right to Life http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/01/opinion/01THU4.html today.

Here are figures from Markel and Doyle's display. There are 8760 hours/ year - a million deaths a year corresponds to 114 lives/hour, hour after hour.

There are

2 million deaths/year from Tuberculosis

1 million deaths/year from Malaria

1 million deaths/year from Hepititus B

1.9 million deaths/year from diarrheal diseases

3.1 million deaths/year from AIDS

almost .9 million deaths/year from measels, long preventable by a cheap vaccine

and, so far, .0007 million deaths/year from SARS, a disease which has gotten more press recently than all these big killers together - which, taken together, killed at a rate of 10 million/year.

These deaths happen because of wrenching disproportions - and "just" looking at the problems from a straight economic point of view throws those disproportions into relief.

rshow55 - 11:20am May 1, 2003 EST (# 11448 of 11500)
Can we do a better job of finding truth? YES. Click "rshow55" for some things Lchic and I have done and worked for on this thread.

The Cost of Saars http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/01/opinion/01THU3.html is worth posting in full.

"SARS is not just a health problem. As fear and shutdowns curtail travel, it is devastating the Asian economy. It may seem heartless to look at a terrifying disease, for which there is neither a vaccine nor a cure, through the lens of cash. But as widespread suffering has failed to persuade leaders in both poor and rich countries to finance public health, perhaps an economic argument will carry more weight.

"SARS raged out of control in China not only because officials suppressed the bad news, but also because China's public health system is in ruins. Sanitation in food stalls — where the virus might have first jumped to humans — is atrocious, and hospitals failed to practice basic infection control. China also needs a better disease surveillance system. Cheap, rudimentary measures would have paid for themselves many times over.

"So far, SARS is costly because it discourages commerce. The Asian Development Bank says SARS could end up costing $16 billion in Asia. Other diseases take a more varied toll. Malaria can do lasting cognitive damage. Many sufferers cannot work productively, and often die with their fruitful years ahead of them. AIDS, which strikes many of the most skilled in society in their prime, is now contributing to shortages of doctors, nurses and teachers in Africa. Businesses shy away from investing in nations, like South Africa, where more than a quarter of the work force is HIV-positive. By reducing the productivity of farmers, AIDS contributes to hunger. AIDS orphans are unlikely to stay in school and will be unprepared for the work force.

" Improving health is one of the few things we know how to do well and cheaply. Tuberculosis can be cured with drugs costing $15. The vaccines protecting children against measles or polio cost pennies. Yet vaccine coverage is dropping in Africa. In some nations, only a quarter of children are immunized.

" The World Health Organization's Commission on Macroeconomics and Health says every country should spend at least $34 per person each year for basic health care. This is paltry compared with the $2,000 annual average spent per person in wealthy nations, but the average in poor countries is $13. These nations could finance some of the increase, but about $27 billion a year would have to come from rich donors. Such investment would directly increase world income by at least $186 billion per year, not counting hundreds of billions of dollars in accumulated economic growth. Purely on the numbers, you cannot beat that rate of return — and oh yes, it would also save lives.

The passage ends "Purely on the numbers, you cannot beat that rate of return."

But that "rate of return" is a logical construct that can only be made real by expenditure of resources - human caring embodied in human decisions, and human institutions.

(52 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense