Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-06-13-Speech-3-217"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010613.7.3-217"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – This is a highly significant point. This is one of the reasons why we have insisted all along – it has not always been easy because public attention has been almost exclusively focused on HIV/AIDS – that malaria, TB and HIV/AIDS have to be looked at in the same manner.
The best economic data we have to illustrate the benefits of doing these things efficiently relate to polio eradication. It has been documented that the world can save USD 1.5 billion per year in ongoing costs if we can mobilise the USD 400-450 million it takes for a 2-3 year final offensive to wipe out the remaining centres of active polio around Nigeria and northern India. It is absolutely feasible and it is an incredible pay-back. As regards TB, the mathematics are similar but it is more difficult to eradicate.
For TB and malaria, the economics of the cure are very different. They cannot in fact be compared to HIV/AIDS, for which there is no cure, only treatment in the mortality rate of HIV-positive persons in the world. If we did what we ought to do for malaria and TB, that would bring about as much improvement as we could ever achieve with anti-retrovirals. This is the real issue. There is good reason to give more attention to TB and malaria.
This was the main contribution of our action programme. It was also supported by the round table last September. It is exactly for that reason that I am somewhat stubborn about creating such a fund when we are not sure about the modalities and the policy of that fund. I therefore welcome the contribution concerning TB."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples