Help I'm dumb and can't read. Does "We first assigned these forecasts during a period in which it appeared that foreign aid might be reduced to effectively zero." mean:
(A) Assuming PEPFAR cut to 0, there will be 257k to 772k deaths next year. In real life, it will be less, because PEPFAR has been partially reinstated.
(B) Taking into account that PEPFAR has partially be reinstated, there will be 257k to 772k deaths next year. If PEPFAR had stayed completely cut, it would be more.
Clicking through to the linked articles, the analyses (and numbers quoted here) seem to be based on a 100% cut to funding. So it's misleading to characterize them as the expected impact of "the projected cuts." Weirdly, I saw a screenshot of the article (https://x.com/albrgr/status/19230828333268993860) that characterized the numbers as reflecting the impact of "ceasing these five programs," which seems accurate. I'm confused why it would have been changed. Not to lose sight of this being a terrible tragedy, either way...
Thank you for doing this work! Personally, I'd love to see these articles complemented by something like a Guesstimate visualization (https://www.getguesstimate.com/), when possible. I find that a more intuitive way to understand probabilistic predictions than longform writing.
If PEPFAR retains around 70% of its previous funding for HIV/AIDS, does that mean that 30% less people get medicines? Can other donors step up, incl private donors? Can some people buy their own drugs? Where can I donate to help cover this?
To give an accounting. To provide an estimated scope of the numbers of people the rest of the world must now try to save because the republican administration decided other interests had more importance.
Help I'm dumb and can't read. Does "We first assigned these forecasts during a period in which it appeared that foreign aid might be reduced to effectively zero." mean:
(A) Assuming PEPFAR cut to 0, there will be 257k to 772k deaths next year. In real life, it will be less, because PEPFAR has been partially reinstated.
(B) Taking into account that PEPFAR has partially be reinstated, there will be 257k to 772k deaths next year. If PEPFAR had stayed completely cut, it would be more.
I had the same question. I think it's (A).
Clicking through to the linked articles, the analyses (and numbers quoted here) seem to be based on a 100% cut to funding. So it's misleading to characterize them as the expected impact of "the projected cuts." Weirdly, I saw a screenshot of the article (https://x.com/albrgr/status/19230828333268993860) that characterized the numbers as reflecting the impact of "ceasing these five programs," which seems accurate. I'm confused why it would have been changed. Not to lose sight of this being a terrible tragedy, either way...
Thank you for doing this work! Personally, I'd love to see these articles complemented by something like a Guesstimate visualization (https://www.getguesstimate.com/), when possible. I find that a more intuitive way to understand probabilistic predictions than longform writing.
If PEPFAR retains around 70% of its previous funding for HIV/AIDS, does that mean that 30% less people get medicines? Can other donors step up, incl private donors? Can some people buy their own drugs? Where can I donate to help cover this?
It's not explicitly PEPFAR, but The Life You Can Save is raising money for evidence-based health organizations that have lost USAID funding https://www.thelifeyoucansave.org/cause-funds/rapid-response-fund
and for what? just to prove that the regime doesn't care about people in need?
To give an accounting. To provide an estimated scope of the numbers of people the rest of the world must now try to save because the republican administration decided other interests had more importance.
Oh I agree. I mean what was the point of these cuts - what do they gain from killing these people?