Costa Rica’s general level of health is far higher than Kenya’s; for example, CR’s (Costa Rica’s) life expectancy is 77, the world’s is 71, and Kenya’s is 61. Kenya is also poorer than CR per person, meaning that government has fewer resources to spend per person such as in quality healthcare.
If you were to donate £100 then, that £100 would go further in Kenya both because there would be easier gains (such as treating diseases in Kenya which typically go untreated, while they do get treated in CR) and also because that £100 converts to more spending power in a poorer country, e.g. Kenya rather than CR. An extreme example would be £100 goes far further in Haiti as compared to Norway owing to spending power.
Right. I apologise if I made you waste your time, but I agree with everything you’ve just said. I can’t exactly remember, but I’m imagining I wrote my comment wrong. Having reread the particular part of the article again, what I was confused about is the claim that Kenyan healthcare is narrower—not that money spent there would be more effective, which sounds very plausible. I was imagining “narrow” to refer to scope of the problem, which I presume is actually greater in Kenya. So what is the article’s use of the word “narrow” getting at? Perhaps it’s simply stating there is less currently done—it’s more neglected. But to me it really implied the problem was narrower, which seems the opposite of the truth. Not that I’m really disagreeing with anyone. I’m just concerned that the wording may be misleading.
Ah right! Yeah ‘narrow’ could do with some more clarification in the article I think (unless we’re both missing something obvious!).
Maybe—and I’m really not sure but based on the context—maybe ‘narrow’ is meant as in there are some more concrete issues within Kenya (e.g. certain diseases which constitute a large proportion of illness in the nation, whereas in CR it’s more balanced because the country’s managed to tackle the widespread but easily solved health issues). So it’s narrower because there are clearer focal points?
But I’m not sure and reckon the author’s much better placed to answer if they see these comments!
Costa Rica’s general level of health is far higher than Kenya’s; for example, CR’s (Costa Rica’s) life expectancy is 77, the world’s is 71, and Kenya’s is 61. Kenya is also poorer than CR per person, meaning that government has fewer resources to spend per person such as in quality healthcare.
If you were to donate £100 then, that £100 would go further in Kenya both because there would be easier gains (such as treating diseases in Kenya which typically go untreated, while they do get treated in CR) and also because that £100 converts to more spending power in a poorer country, e.g. Kenya rather than CR. An extreme example would be £100 goes far further in Haiti as compared to Norway owing to spending power.
Right. I apologise if I made you waste your time, but I agree with everything you’ve just said. I can’t exactly remember, but I’m imagining I wrote my comment wrong. Having reread the particular part of the article again, what I was confused about is the claim that Kenyan healthcare is narrower—not that money spent there would be more effective, which sounds very plausible. I was imagining “narrow” to refer to scope of the problem, which I presume is actually greater in Kenya. So what is the article’s use of the word “narrow” getting at? Perhaps it’s simply stating there is less currently done—it’s more neglected. But to me it really implied the problem was narrower, which seems the opposite of the truth. Not that I’m really disagreeing with anyone. I’m just concerned that the wording may be misleading.
Ah right! Yeah ‘narrow’ could do with some more clarification in the article I think (unless we’re both missing something obvious!).
Maybe—and I’m really not sure but based on the context—maybe ‘narrow’ is meant as in there are some more concrete issues within Kenya (e.g. certain diseases which constitute a large proportion of illness in the nation, whereas in CR it’s more balanced because the country’s managed to tackle the widespread but easily solved health issues). So it’s narrower because there are clearer focal points?
But I’m not sure and reckon the author’s much better placed to answer if they see these comments!