评论
打印
Malaria: Equipping partners to end the disease
疟疾：支持合作伙伴终结这一疾病
By the turn of this century, malaria had been eliminated in wealthy nations yet still killed nearly a million people a year – mostly young children – in poorer countries. So we joined with other organizations working to reduce the burden of this preventable disease, dedicating billions of dollars to the effort. This past September, the foundation announced a US$912 million commitment over three years to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria.
到本世纪初，疟疾在富裕国家已被消灭，但在贫困国家每年仍有近百万人因疟疾死亡， 其中大多数是儿童。因此，我们与其他组织一同致力于减轻这一可预防疾病的负担，并为此投入了数十亿美元。去年9月，盖茨基金会宣布将在三年内向抗击艾滋病、结核病和疟疾全球基金提供9.12亿美元。
Our biggest contribution over the years, though, may not have been the money. In 2007, Melinda posed a challenge to the global health community: Rather than merely reduce the threat of malaria, why not totally eradicate it? From there, we plotted backwards: What actions would get the world to zero cases? Of those, which would be unlikely to happen if we didn't play a role?
然而，这些年来，我们最大的贡献可能并非资金。2007年，梅琳达向全球健康界发起了一个挑战：与其仅仅减少疟疾的威胁，为什么不彻底根除它？我们从这个目标进行倒推：什么行动能让世界实现零病例？这些行动中，有哪些是如果我们不发挥作用就不太可能发生的？
Our influence hasn't really been about what we can make happen. (Our contribution to the Global Fund, after all, is only about 6% of what it raises from all donors.) It's about how we help others make a huge impact.
我们的影响力并不在于我们自己能做什么，（毕竟，我们对全球基金的捐款只占它筹资总额的约6%。）而在于我们如何帮助他人产生巨大的成效。
We have funded R&D for and gotten private-sector companies to focus on not just the next generation of diagnostic tools, bed nets, and medicines, but also the generation after that. That includes work agreements we've reached with pharmaceutical companies so they produce drugs that benefit low-income populations, even though those products don't have high profit margins. We've helped some countries export their knowledge – like China, which eliminated malaria within its borders and now lends its expertise to African countries – and helped others strengthen measurement systems and analytic capacity so they can use data to tailor malaria interventions to local needs. And we fund the training of African entomologists and national malaria program staff, so that there will always be a vibrant community of experts to see the fight to the end.
我们为私营企业的研发提供资金，让它们不仅关注下一代诊断工具、蚊帐和药品，而且放眼再下一代的创新工具。这包括我们与制药公司达成的工作协议，让他们生产能够帮助低收入人群的药物，即使这些产品利润率不高。我们还帮助一些国家分享他们的经验——比如中国在境内消除了疟疾，现在又将其专长与非洲国家分享——我们还帮助其他国家加强测量系统和分析能力，让他们能够利用数据因地制宜地制定疟疾干预措施。我们还资助培训了非洲昆虫学家和国家疟疾项目工作人员，这样就会有一支充满活力的专家队伍将这场战斗进行到底。
All along, Bill, Melinda, and I have spent a lot of time trying to convince leaders to dedicate more money to fighting malaria and other diseases that disproportionately affect people living in poverty.
一直以来，比尔、梅琳达和我花了大量时间试图说服各国领导人投入更多资金，用于防治疟疾和其他不成比例地影响了贫困人口的疾病。
By all accounts, the fight has been a big success. While malaria deaths have increased during the pandemic, from 2000 to 2020 the death rate dropped by nearly 50%. We're optimistic that cases could fall even more over the next few years, thanks to several promising innovations in the works, including a preventive therapy that uses monoclonal antibodies and ways to rid areas of the most deadly mosquitos (by killing them with sugar bait traps or using genetic technology to stop disease transmission).
这场战斗取得了公认的成功。虽然疟疾死亡人数在新冠大流行期间有所上升，但从2000年到2020年，疟疾死亡率下降了近50%。我们乐观地认为，得益于正在进行的几项大有前景的创新，包括使用单克隆抗体的预防性治疗，以及消灭最致命蚊子的方法（通过糖饵陷阱杀死它们或使用基因技术阻止疾病传播），疟疾病例在未来几年还会进一 步下降。
Despite this progress, people have raised good questions about our work. They ask whether resources spent on specific diseases would be better spent on improving overall health systems. They suggest that eradication is an unrealistic goal. And they critique the foundation for playing what they see as an outsized role.
尽管取得了这些进展，人们还是对我们的工作提出了很好的问题。他们问，用于特定疾病的资源是否可以用于更好地改善整个卫生系统。他们认为根除疟疾是个不切实际的目标。他们还批评基金会在他们看来扮演了一个过大的角色。
We agree that funding health systems is important, so we do that too, in Ethiopia, India, and other countries. We agree that calling for malaria eradication is audacious, but we knew that any lesser goal would mean continued suffering.
我们认同投资于卫生系统很重要，所以我们在埃塞俄比亚、印度和其他国家也确实这么做了。我们也认同根除疟疾是个大胆的目标，但我们知道，任何退而求其次的目标都将意味着持续的苦难。
On the size of our role, I agree, in a way: It's not right for a private philanthropy to be one of the largest funders of multinational global health efforts. Countries should fully fund them. But consider the example of the World Health Organization. Where we share common goals, like eradicating malaria, we fund WHO programs. As countries have decreased their contributions, we've become the second-largest donor. I'd love it if many more governments would pass us on that list – because that would mean more lives saved.
关于我们的作用，我在某种程度上认同：一个私人慈善机构成为全球健康跨国行动的最大资助者之一是不对的。各国政府应完全资助这些行动。但以世界卫生组织为例，在我们有着共同目标的领域，如根除疟疾，我们资助了世界卫生组织的项目。而随着各国减少捐款，我们已成为了其第二大捐助方。我希望有更多政府在这个名单上超越我们，因为这意味着更多生命将得以挽救。
