Ending respiratory infections
A new $500M philanthropic effort aims to dramatically reduce common respiratory infections using tools like better air filtration, UV-based air cleaning and improved vaccines, prompting debate over how realistic such a “moonshot” is. Commenters weigh personal experiences of severe illness, long COVID and constant childhood infections against skepticism about technical feasibility, economic incentives, and the practicality of cleaning air versus water at scale. Many argue that structural measures—ventilation standards, school and office upgrades, lifestyle and public health policies—could have large benefits but are hard to fund and justify because their success is largely invisible.
Personal impact and motivation
- Multiple commenters share serious cases: death from a “mild” virus in an immunocompromised person, frequent severe illness in families with young children, asthma flare-ups and many missed school days, and long COVID leading to disability.
- These stories are used to push back on “it’s just a cold” attitudes and to justify strong support for ambitious prevention efforts.
How common and burdensome respiratory infections are
- One claim that healthy people spend ~15–25 days/year sick is hotly debated.
- Some see it as unbelievable; others (especially with kids, office work, or public transit) say it matches or even underestimates their experience.
- Distinction is made between “bedridden” vs. any symptoms; some think the number only works if every minor symptom counts.
- Several report dramatic increases in illness after kids start daycare/school; others report big decreases after remote work or avoiding subways.
Air quality and air-cleaning technologies
- Many are disappointed society didn’t invest more in ventilation, HEPA filters, and UV after COVID, especially in schools and offices.
- Some report anecdotal success with home HEPA units reducing illness.
- Barriers cited: cost to building owners, unclear ROI, invisible benefits (“nothing happens when it works”), and technical challenges in dense environments like subways.
Feasibility and strategy skepticism
- Some are excited by the moonshot framing; others doubt biology will yield to money as predictably as rocketry.
- Critiques of comparing air and water: water is centralized and controllable; air is diffuse and ubiquitous.
- A few worry the plan may be strategically flawed even with good execution; “ending” respiratory infections is seen as possibly unrealistic.
Funding, economics, and incentives
- $500M is seen as both large (for a risky bet) and tiny compared to NASA or wars.
- Debate over whether philanthropy is a good substitute for public funding; some argue market incentives favor ongoing treatment over true cures.
- Others note opportunity cost versus cheaper global health interventions (malnutrition, basic disease control).
Vaccines and self-spreading concepts
- Interest is expressed in contagious/self-replicating vaccines, but most replies raise ethical, consent, and bioweapon concerns and doubt public acceptance.
- Standard vaccines are viewed as underused due to misinformation and logistics, not lack of technology.
Lifestyle and regulatory measures
- Some argue that diet, exercise, sleep, and stress reduction can greatly cut illness; others counter that this does not make one immune to flu or kid-borne pathogens.
- Proposals include sugar/alcohol/nicotine taxes and stricter pollution controls; implementation costs and political obstacles are acknowledged.