He's making the same point. This is why you will probably be down voted.
It is exactly like marciovm123 says, "This sort of spending tugs at the heart strings but unfortunately it can actually be quite counter-productive at improving the lives of people in undeveloped regions."
If a country is really that badly off, what difference does it make if we save people from one form of suffering only to have them be subjected to a different form. I agree with some of the above statements that the money would be better spent developing the infrastructure of 3rd world countries, rather than trying to solve a more isolated problem. Simply making vaccines cheaper is treating a symptom and not the problem itself.
It would matter to me if someone saved my life from sickness, even if I did die of starvation shortly afterwards.
>If a country is really that badly off, what difference does it make if we save people from one form of suffering only to have them be subjected to a different form
I don't understand. By that logic, action is only worthwhile if there is exactly one form of suffering. Surely that can't be right.
I'm not sure if the money would stretch this far, but what if instead of saving you, the money was spent developing the country in a way that would save 10x more people. Looking at this problem from a personal perspective gets in the way of doing the most good for the most number of people.
>I don't understand. By that logic, action is only worthwhile if there is exactly one form of suffering. Surely that can't be right.
Or action is worthwhile if it treats multiple forms, which I believe infrastructure development would do.
Perhaps I'm wrong and vaccination is the first step in the path to pull the countries out of poverty.
But as I said, I could be wrong. Either ways, props to Gates for trying to help out.