Bill Gates is a public health expert. He has been working on these problems with some of the smartest minds in the field for decades now. How long does someone need to be working on a problem before they're worthy of being a "go to source", in your opinion?
Well anyone who has extensively published novel research that has altered best practise in the field for the better and has a track record of being sensible, well-reasoned, logical, has an understanding of how humans organise not just the natural world and has wonderful command of spoken and written expression would be near the top of the wish-list.
It's not how long it took that person to demonstrate this. It's that Gates kinda hasn't really done it.
He's far from terrible but he gets pretty low scores on most of those attributes. He's not going to be listened to if he didn't bring the money. His experience in making microsoft a juggernaut in the 80s and 90s is not super-relevant here but that's why he's being held up as an "authority." That position of authority is one he seems very happy to hold and use as a pulpit.
Is it deserved at all? Maybe it is. He did bring the money to a lot of programs and I believe he is even bankrolling the WHO nowadays (worthwhile after their multiple screwups that continue? I don't know. Maybe it is and a vital service he's performed there). Gates an expert? Hmm. Don't think he's really demonstrated that conclusively. He'd use his position to get advice from one or more, one would think.
To be clear. More power to him giving his vast wealth away to try and make the world better in tangible ways. You can't possibly spend more than $100m in your life on consumption even if you're totally nuts. Go for immortality. Do it in a way that's kinda good. Go Bill! I pray your good intentions don't pave a road you don't want built as I do everyone's good intentions, including my own.
> but that's why he's being held up as an "authority."
Look at his prepandemic warnings of a pandemic and how it would play out. And real money and action in trying to prevent it. That's why he is being held up as an authority.
Presumably Bill Gates was a good manager and CEO, he became the richest man in the world by running a very successful software company.
And in his current field of "global health" he hopefully has as good of a grasp of the issues, the proposed solutions, and since he's a smart man he's hopefully able to separate the bullshit from the effective solutions.
A financial stake is usually about making a profit. The Gates Foundation is not going to make any profit here, it's looking at funding vaccines at super low cost and giving them away or the manufacturer selling them for as little as possible to governments who would give them away. I hated Gates the monopolist and the foundation has messed up on a few questions (see: efforts in Education), but how in hell can you say that it has a financial stake? If anything, the most successful people are at finding a solution, the more he's going to deplete the coffers of the Foundation, as a vaccine manufacturing force multiplier.
Bill Gates certainly doesn’t have the credentials of a public health expert. His work with health experts has extended to funding and choosing what problems to solve.
You’d presume he’s learned a fair amount about it over the years. But I’ve learned a fair amount about accountancy through my years of working with corporate accountants. I’m definitely not an accountancy expert though.
What qualifications do you imagine he has? What significant work do you believe he has personally contributed to?
There are credentials and there are credentials, right?
The difference between a trained lawyer or accountant and someone with a lot of exposure to such knowledge is very specific skills and procedures. The difference between someone who is a trained manager with a degree and someone who's managed a medium sized organization is more or less nothing just an ability to use jargon.
I've actually looked online courses and documentation on epidemiology and public health. Unlike medicine (which I know nothing of) or advance mathematics (which I know and I know it take specialized skills), epidemiology seems to be a "smattering" sort of fields. A mix of public policy, simple medicine, biology and experimental methods and statistics. I could be wrong but it seems a field that's wide, not deep.
If your full time job is to lead corporate accountants / head a large corporate accountancy firm and you've done it for several years, I'd consider you an accountancy expert.
It's not corporate in the sense of a successful business. It's a self-funded personal project with nothing to hold it accountable for competency. This is one of the major criticism of Gates in the NGO world.
Sure, but that doesn't make him not an expert. Accountability != expertise. People believe Bill Gates is credible because he has a long track record of being credible.
I guess that makes the guy who manages my software engineering team a software engineering expert too?
As far as I can tell, the person who actually leads the Gates Foundation health division is Trevor Mundel. Even then, the work of the Gates Foundation has been in funding projects lead by other organisations, rather than in implementing those projects themselves.
So if an engineering team is successful, then their manager is necessarily an engineering expert? You’re really not providing any rationale to support this rather extreme position. Bill Gates experience in the field of public health is choosing projects to finance, and even then he is not the primary person responsible for that in his foundation. Bill Gates has no credentials you could point to, and has done no work you could point to, that would support an assertion of him being a public health expert. It is frankly a ridiculous proposition.
His work in eradicating Polio.
Choosing which projects to finance is a skill in itself, something he's likely more capable of than a traditionally credentialed expert. I can't help but think that you have an arbitrarily narrow definition of expertise.
What public health expertise do you believe Bill Gates personally contributed to the
The Global Polio Eradication Initiative? As far as I can tell, Bill Gates contributed $110 million USD
to The Global Polio Eradication Initiative in funding, but personally contributed no polio eradication expertise at all to that project.
There is no basis at all for claiming he’s a public health expert. He might be an effective philanthropist, but that’s a completely different topic.
I mean but you can take this even further using your logic: Why even listen to Dr. Fauci, then? Is Fauci at Moderna right now actually making the vaccine? Get me the lab tech running the tests and I'll settle for nothing less!
Like it or not, he's become a highly controversial figure for a large fraction of the population, particularly within the societies that his foundation works. In my opinion, they'd do good to pick a figure whose name is less tarnished if they want the message to be more broadly accepted.
3 : he wants to use his money for philanthropic cause. I can't overstate how great it is. The way he uses his money though, has been pretty controversial. From pushing a pro patent agenda in countries that are too poor to afford medicine made under that system to accusations of straight up using his money so his ideas are applied, even when they go against actual experts with data (and actual expertise) to back their positions.
I'm not interested in digging up the information on this because it was over 10 years ago, so take it with a huge grain of salt.
He had this huge presentation about a laser zapping mosquitoes. The patent was fed to a patent troll, the whole board was stacked with his friends, the company produced nothing and was set up to sue anyone who did try and produce anything. 10 years later they still haven't produced more than the one prototype. The 'charitable' donations were literally just tax write offs that paid for his friends salary.
Since then I really don't take him seriously at all. His charities are just a way to reduce his tax bill and look like he cares, while he's just paying his friends to work on projects they find interesting regardless of the chance of success.
In short: hubris, corruption, white collar rico and tax evasion.
The point of this article appears to be that the Gates foundation simultaneously promotes vaccination and helps pharmaceutical companies with their vaccine research. While that is technically a conflict of interest...it's not much of one. They do both of those things vaccines because vaccines save millions of lives per year.
It'd be like saying it's a conflict of interest to promote access to clean water, while also investing in companies that supply clean water. Sure. It's a conflict. It's also exactly what you would do if you just wanted people to have clean water.
I think his biggest mistake is that he's focused so much on two issues that make it easy to paint him in a negative light. If I was a native Nigerian and some rich white guy started building abortion centres and injecting people with needles all over my country it would be easy to become skeptical.
If I were in his shoes I'd focus more on issues like education, improving basic utilities in urban areas, fighting corruption and enabling economies to expand.
No matter who you put forth saying what Gates has been saying, they will quickly be tarnished by the same baseless bullshit. Effectively 0% of people knew who Facui or Birx were before the pandemic. Now they're the target of the same kind of controversy.
It’s the same mechanism over and over. If I say something on a blog or newspaper like : “user Creato makes apps that make people dumber”
It is you who have to go on the defensive, especially if it gets spread far and wide, regardless if it is true or not. But the lie is out there and your truth has to catch up.
I think if someone was gay and or dealt with HIV in some form, they likely heard of Dr Fauci. Researchers definitely know who is. From his CDC bio: “In a 2020 analysis of Google Scholar citations, Dr. Fauci ranked as the 41st most highly cited researcher of all time. According to the Web of Science, Dr. Fauci ranked 7th out of more than 1.8 million authors in the field of immunology by total citation count between 1980 and January 2020.”
Maybe zero young people but I’d say well informed middle age and up would know who Facui is. It’s hard to debate this with a source but these people have even in the news for decades when things go wrong. I disagree with the “effective 0%”
“author, coauthor, or editor of more than 1,300 scientific publications, including several textbooks.“
“Dr. Fauci ranked 7th out of more than 1.8 million authors in the field of immunology by total citation count between 1980 and January 2020.”
Note this isn’t just 2020. It’s a long history.
“Dr. Fauci was appointed director of NIAID in 1984.” And has served under 6 presidents. Most of which had more than 1 term.
If you are looking for a long list of awards and honorary doctorates head over to his Wikipedia page.
To the replies I got
- I don’t consider 30’s middle aged. I guess I was thinking if you were around with AIDS news in the 80’s you might remember him. Oxford dictionary considers middled aged 45-65
- google trending searches isn’t how I would evaluate the history of someone over decades of time.
For fun I did fin a bunch of videos of times he was on TV via YouTube. So again my point is that 0% is far from right.
But Gates is controversial because of the work he did that make him a qualified source, so it's not unlikely that any reasonable alternative would also have their name "tarnished".
So... do you keep picking new spokespeople when each one becomes unreasonably tarnished?
Because each and every person who promotes public health and (particularly) vaccination, eventually has so much baseless shit thrown at them that they become 'tarnished' before long.
Or should we try to make some sort of stand, and let the wingnuts know their opinions don't matter?
We see the effects of this sort of compromise in the vaccine space - perfectly safe additives were removed in an effort to assuage fears, but that action was twisted into a victory by antivax campaigners - "see, we were right, it was harmful, they lied, we forced them to remove it".
(Gates is tarnished in my eyes for computer industry reasons, but I have no issue with his record in public health)
Makes no difference. Ohio had Amy Acton, a medical doctor who specialized in public health. She did a great job but the right wing nutcases still sent her and her family death threats to the point where she was forced to resign.
