By End to AIDS until 2030 is a goal sincerely sought and longed for?
What happened to the cure for 2020? !!! 🤢
End of AIDS ...
Well well well…
The subject By End of AIDS until 2030 gives rise to a note from the editor of Soropositivo.Org
You see, in 2014 I was already in line with people who, like me, had "some skepticism" about this proposal, knowledge of the moral, social and behavioral, embedded *** in it ***
There is, somewhere, a text (...) written (...) by someone, but I do not know whether to pay it or not. someone…
As a matter of fact, I do not give a damn.
These are my personal lessons, in a country where free expression is allowed and anonymity is forbidden, and in the meantime:
Who is this person? In flagrant disregard of our constitution ...
Who asks this, it's me, and everyone knows who I am, my picture is everywhere and I've already been recognized in the subway!
Well, it is said there that I live by the doctrine of fear. Today I saw, a great and loyal friend, always coherent to make the most worried mention of non-governmental organizations that speak of PrEP linking them to the "end of the condoms" dictatorship!
Seriously, I'm married and I'm very happy at the wedding.
To be honest, I've never been able to live more than three years with a woman and.
To be honest, there was not one that did not begin to be "betrayed" soon after the idyll so brief.
Idyll that ended, always, by the limitation of the dialogue ....
IT IS…. not half of the mass is known ... 😎😈🤐 How much Pink Panther ....
- And with Mara, though ... Well, she completes me.
- It is possible to chat for hours with her and we agree on almost everything
- But with all that we have seen and seen, we believe that ultimately AIDS is not a simple task.
- On the other hand, the "dictatorship of condoms" is an untrue and misplaced verbal expression at this time of the epidemic in which cases begin to increase on the one hand.
- And, on the other, the deaths as a result begin to rise
I've been with Mara, living together for about seventeen years and since then, there has not been and there will not be.
But that's because Mara completes me!
And I have become more and more demanding about the intellectual and mental attributions of women in my relationships.
But by throwing for a minute the hypothesis that I was with another woman, a sorodivergent, or not.
I would not bet on the quality of life, health, well-being of this person who, in summary:
- accepted to give me
- maybe just for one night,
- with their favors and cries,
- follies and usury only,
- pure and just not to be subjected to the "dictatorship of the condom".
Finally, AIDS is very important! Get the bloody hell stupid - Yes! Yes! I watch Lucifer on Netflix!
On the other hand, this text gives me the opportunity to talk about something else:
That is, this video here uncontested
The beautiful overproduction of amfAR, which promises to find a cure for AIDS until 2020.
And the title of this text in Portuguese is verbatim like the original and the question speaks in 2030 !!!!
What happened to the cure for 2020? You see, I do not think about healing for me. I dream of it to you, I am happy (yes, yes !!!) in this way, if God did not love me .... Why had he allowed me to accomplish so many things "like this"?
If there is not a video talking about an "epic ending" below, they have cut my incorporation of the same
I am alive and although there is limitation, pain and a little suffering, so that I remember well who I am and how I got here, I am happy with what I have because I have learned to accept my life as it is and try to improve it , day after day with patience and although a clown has made me ironic, saying that after watching a video of me saying, I repeat, "I'm very well for those who have peripheral neuropathy - the cow is so slutty that I did not have time to respond - I'm going to put a picture of my left hand here and, right after it, the photo, I ask,
What happened, "Nhá amfAR", with the cure for 2020? Ending AIDS and its videographic overproduction
It was not just "grab de torch" (catch the torch) - and I would say, if I could: "Take your forks" as in the movie Frankenstein, with Boris Karloff In Memoriam and ask your questions to them !!!!!!!!!!!
Because I'd really like to know what the people who "held the torches" should do by now, in 2018.
The torches today ... Tomorrow the forcados?
Yes, I know, it's still March, it's true, but time goes by, time flies, Time does not stop .
(Cazuza - In Memoriam).
Of me, that's all. Good reading. And, by God, hold yourself responsible, think that no matter how small, there is a risk.
And you only risk transmitting HIV to an enemy.
And no one goes to bed with who they hate right? "Hcapri"
Ending AIDS until 2030
The goal of reducing the incidence of HIV by 90% around 2030, the reference value designated to end AIDS, in 2030, will not be achieved. The road we're walking on does not seem to lead there. This is the inevitable conclusion to be drawn from the results by Sherrie Kelly and colleagues 1 in Lancet HIV, if your results are valid.
But are your results valid? Judged by standard criteria,2, they seem to be. The structure of their models has apparent validity, the entries are precise manifestations of existing evidence, and the output of the model corresponds to other observations a large part of the time and across a wide range of countries and epidemiological contexts.
By End of AIDS It's not just statistics!
Tested is the overall validity of an existing model, so the relevant question is whether decisions made using the model would lead to better results than those made otherwise. 3 We can be confident that the answer is yes. In addition, the results converge with the observation that few countries are on track to achieve the 90-90-90 goal by 20304 and are broadly consistent with those of other entirely separate modeling jobs. 5, 6, 7
By End of AIDS you would need to have your expenses tripled
If the results are valid, expenditures would need to be tripled (from $ 12,8 billion to $ 40 billion per year) and optimized. In fact, without optimization, what you need to spend to achieve this goal would probably be $ 52 billion per year.
About R $ 152 Bi per year that can be reached with extreme ease if the "Gigolots of the Homeland" - a Great Book - were expurgated from our so democratic, democratic society, from democracy to the few ... Where all are equal, but some are more equal than others ...
Optimization means finding out how to allocate resources ($$$$$$$$$) in a more efficient way, in order to offer the maximum of health.
As a result, Kelly and her colleagues sought to identify a scenario in which wanting to allocate funds from one program to another would fail to improve health, based on the HIV incidence rate in the population.
Their results suggest that the optimization would be to decrease HIV infections in 26% (uncertainty interval from 13 to 50%), corresponding to about 7,4 million infections avoided, and would be surprisingly simple.
By End To AIDS by 2030 would be possible with the reallocation of funds toward only two or three types of programs.
Over 90% of this benefit would be achieved by simply reallocating funds toward only two or three types of programs:
- antiretroviral therapy, (There is a person of Hindu origin contacting me by zap for weeks, all he asks me (poor me) is "Treatment to AIDS".
- It seems that there is no or he is uninformed, is ... Disinformation is something that does not prevail and rages here. Keeping ignorance is a lot of fucking interest
- Prevention of mother-to-child transmission (Cuba has achieved this on its own) - Take the grim phrase ...
- Increasing the volume of HIV serology tests - People, wake up to the real one, the longer you spend sex without testing, the more likely you are to contract and still spread HIV among others like I was one day, who woke up, woman on the side in bed, thinking: "Who am I going to eat today?" - and it was always without a condom.
- And, therefore, LOGA LIFE TO THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE T-SHIRTS
"It would only be enough if budgets for these items were increased."
The reallocation of funds between countries makes a comparatively small difference.
The authors note that a short-term boost in voluntary male medical circumcision could achieve these results and, furthermore, if their approach had allowed consideration of time and expenditure variables.
The $$$$$$$$$$$ thing reminds me of Pet Shop Boys singing "You're always on my mind" ....
The result of the optimization to put an end to AIDS could be the quantitative incorporation of a simple idea:
Doing more than we know works for sure, and doing less of what we still do will result in failure (have you ever thought with President Bolsonaro? Cut costs, reducing staffing in strategic areas, deliberate negligence or not (who cares?) In logistics procurement, purchase, receipt, distribution of antiretroviral drugs to PrEP, PEP, Treatments (only a genocide would do that, but ... By Ulstra !!!)
😱Bolsonaro for President? 😱
Spend more on treating and testing, and by extrapolation, more on improving grip and tightening the continuum in key populations.
Although not explicitly stated by the authors, these funds should represent an increase in expenditure and the effective cost of interventions, which means that they would deliver more health than if those funds were spent concurrently with resource constraints on alternative interventions .
Increasing spending is not easy because competing priorities always exists. The authors suggest that it takes another $ 27 billion to 2030, even with optimization. While some efficiency gains from existing programs could help to subsidize this amount, particularly for more differentiated care, 8 , 9 more community-based care and testing, 10 , 11 and more cautious use of programs that may be essential but not directly affect health (that authors anti-HIV long-term programs), the economy would be $ 5 billion annually at most, which is not close to filling the gap of $ 27 billion.
An important limitation of the study is that the authors do not consider prophylaxis. Pre-exposure
This would substantially reduce the resources needed to achieve a reduction of 90% in the incidence of up to 2030, 12, 13 then this omission does not deny the main key point of the study points. In addition, the authors did not consider time-variable program expenses, which could show that expenditures could peak earlier than 2030, perhaps already in 2025, based on the findings of other modeling studies. 5 2015.
Many could say that increasing spending by $ 27 billion per year by the end of AIDS to 2025 or 2030
It would be impractical, particularly in a context where funding decreased by 7% in 2016. But many would do more and say that reallocating resources away from entrenched programs such as condom use promotion would be unfeasible. However, based on this and other works, we can be confident that the end of AIDS for the year of 2030 requires two actions with uncertain viability: expansion of funding from 2025 to 203030 and reallocation of this funding. Worse yet, implementing less than one means implementing more of the other.
But what is unfeasible or feasible is, in general, a matter of priorities regarding the end of AIDS for 2030. (aMFar?)
If the priority for Ending AIDS until 2030 is high enough, unviable actions could suddenly become feasible. It boils, and on fire, even this question that seeks to know if ending AIDS until 2030 is a captivating slogan or a sincere goal.
I declare that I have no vested interest in competing interests. (this statement belongs to the author (s).
I, Cláudio Souza, wonder what would bring more fiduciary profit.
Because the humanitarian is harder to mine than bitcoins ...