Less amount of fund is required for disease prevention than it is for the remedy, thus investment should be poured into hindering the spread of the disease rather than the research for the cure. Give your opinion on that.

Less amount of fund is required for disease prevention than it is for the remedy, thus investment should be poured into hindering the spread of the disease rather than the research for the cure. This essay agree with the statement, since there is never a guarantee for successful treatment, and a lack of prevention poses insecurity on the health of global citizens. Firstly, risk incurs when cash is put into research and development. Innovators might or might not devise therapy which is financially feasible and scalable. Consider the chronic hepatitis C, a liver disease caused by infection with virus, anti-virus drug was discovered; however the price was so high as a result of high research cost that it is barely accessible by low-to-middle class citizens. Other diseases, such as Ebola virus, had spread across countries for a period of time, depriving lives of thousands of people, before its medicament was discovered. Secondly, without prevention, transmittable diseases will bring about wide infection which can expand into a global pandemic, endangering every individual. The absence of precaution is associated with a stake so high that neither a country nor the world can bear. Take in to account of two infamous epidemic: the Spanish Flu and the Coronavirus. These outbreaks were responsible for millions of death worldwide. In conclusion, providing financial backing for the experiment trade off the budgetary capacity to support ailment prevention, which in fact cost smaller. Therefore, the capital should go to constructing a strong safeguard, in lieu of finding the cure.