You said that you thought drugs should get priority (over vaccines).
You did not say explicitly over vaccines. But priority has to be over something else and since vaccines were the only other thing under discussion and the only remotely comparable alternative, IMHO it was reasonable (unavoidable really) to interpret your statement that drugs should get priority over vaccines.
ANd I responded by presenting highly detailed arguments why vaccines should get priority over drugs. Just as you never said that vaccines should not be developed and used, in equal fashion I never remotely said that drugs should not be developed and used.
And you have presented no evidence nor counterarguments whatsoever to oppose my contention that vaccines should get PRIORITY (NOT saying REPLACE)
Clearly the WHO and CIDRAP both share my view (about vaccines getting priority over drugs.
CIDRAP recently released a report on "Fast Tracking the Development of Ebola VACCINES" which barely mentioned drugs at all, and only in passing. And no comparable document on fast tracking the development of drugs.
This is because, while an effective drug can save lives, it cannot significantly slow or prevent the spread of an outbreak. An effective vaccine can bring an outbreak to a very rapid stop (even without vaccinating the entire population due to "herd immunity" (again, one cannot understand either drugs nor vaccines' effects on pandemics and disease without understanding the concept of herd immunity)
-----------
the above was RE"You also fail to respond to my point that it would be difficult or impossible to inoculate large populations in third-world countries who believe that illnesses like HIV and Ebola were caused by Westerners who (in their opinions falsely) claimed to be providing medical care."
