Attachment

) both, because they are mutually reinforcing. infinite worth without any reference to us. They have mothers who love them and children who need them and friends who cherish them--and we ought to help them." I could not agree more. When Melinda and I started the Gates Foundation two decades ago, we decided that providing resources to reduce and eventually get rid of this inequity would be our biggest focus. The moral arguments do not fully persuade the governments of most rich countries to spend enough money to reduce or eliminate diseases that aren't killing their own people. Fortunately, there are also practical arguments that make the case even stronger, including the idea that better health makes the world more stable and improves international relations. I've been making that case for years, and now, in the COVID era, we have the additional benefit that investments in new medicines and developing-country health systems will help us stop pandemics before they engulf the world. Virtually everything we should do to fight infectious diseases like malaria is also broadly helpful for future pandemics, and vice versa. It's not a binary choice in which we must decide whether to put money into pandemic prevention or infectious disease programs. It is just the opposite. Not only can we do both, we should do both, because they are mutually reinforcing. Let's review the progress that the world has made in global health, and what made that progress possible. As bad as the disparities I've mentioned above are, they are smaller today than at any point in history; when it comes to basic measures of health, we're moving in the right direction. How this progress happened is a thrilling story, and it bears directly on the world's ability to prevent pandemics. ***