undefined | Better HN

0 pointscdcox12y ago0 comments

It's not a direct comparison, but consider the handling of Ebola, where due to simple epidemiological interventions spread has basically been localized and stopped and no outbreak has killed more than 1000 people. Or consider the regular emergence of new flu strains which are far more contagious and are quickly and effectively contained. Though that comparison isn't great because we have a lot of knowledge when it comes to dealing with the flu.

My impression is (and I have not studied this) the failure in the HIV epidemic (pandemic?) wasn't a failure to develop drugs, it was a failure to perform basic epidemiological interventions to learn about and slow the progress of the disease.

0 comments

2 comments · 2 top-level

tptacek12y ago

In a sense this is a way of saying that in epidemiology, the failures are noisy and successes are silent, so comparing large epidemics across history might be misleading.

brazzy12y ago

the comparison makes no sense because the diseases are radically different. Ebola kills so quickly and is so infectious that it is self-limiting: patients die before they can spread it very far. Whereas AIDS patients can spread the disease for years, though it is as weakly infectious as as contagious disease can be.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse