We can do both. There is absolutely no reason why a breakthrough has to be suffixed with "well that's great, but it would be much greater to look at this demographic!". These are all people, and they all deserve treatment equally.
As other commenters wrote, the huge challenge that lays ahead of us is to take this progress to the African continent; the road ahead is just as hard as the one that has brought us here
Resources and capability are available but the ones at the steering wheel are not willing to allow them to be used. Otherwise it would be done, right?
Does anyone have any explanation for this? How popular would this action be with the people of North America/Europe/Asia? Would it even make a dent in terms of budget when compared to typical foreign aid payments for example?
The Chinese are heavily investing in Africa to gain influence and resources, the Europeans ship off billions of Euros in goods and cash for aid, the US is also buying influence with aid all over Africa.
Is it simply not paying off? There is no short term political or economic benefit here? Is that it?
I think that's something you have to support. Certainly it is possible, but what else are you putting off or de-prioritizing to do it?
I certainly agree that we should aim to make the most impactful improvements in the most people's lives, I just don't quite know how a global society or even individual countries go about a reasonable prioritization process.
Absolutely true, but rarely are there enough resources to treat all patients simultaneously, hence triage. If the death rate in one group is higher and faster than another, you should focus on that group first, generally.