
The Deadliest Animal in the World - beniaminmincu
http://www.gatesnotes.com/Health/Most-Lethal-Animal-Mosquito-Week?WT.mc_id=MosquitoWeek2014_SharkWeek_tw&WT.tsrc=Twitter
======
Synaesthesia
Besides the lethality of the disease, we must consider how debilitating it is.
Read what it's like to have Malaria.

[http://www.gatesnotes.com/Health/What-Malaria-Feels-Like-
Mos...](http://www.gatesnotes.com/Health/What-Malaria-Feels-Like-Mosquito-
Week)

Imagine feeling like that and trying to go to school, work, or take care of
your family. It would be impossible. It's undoubtedly contributed to the lack
of development in most of Africa.

~~~
Retric
I suspect this as a lot to do with why tropical countries are less prosperous
despite all the benefits of living in the tropics. Still, I find it somewhat
disingenuous to downplay the ~1,200,000 vehicle related deaths as somehow not
caused by people.

~~~
test1235
You should read 'Guns, Germs and Steel' by Jared Diamond.

It's a very interesting book about how the civilised world came to be the way
it is, for example, why Europe discovered America, and not vice versa.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel)

~~~
codemonkeymike
I too read the book, amazing incite so much so that it seem almost obvious.
For those who are too lazy to read, it also comes in documentary form!

~~~
GFK_of_xmaspast
It's also, from what I understand, generally considered "bunk" by people who
know the field.

~~~
ecdavis
My mother has a degree in Archaeology and considers Jared Diamond fairly
suspect (Guns, Germs and Steel in particular). Apparently he cites some
articles/books that have various problems (methodology, factual errors, etc.)
These problems were well known at the time that he was writing.

I would encourage anyone who reads it to also read reviews/critiques by
qualified people.

------
indralukmana
So, in indonesia (bill gates recently came here) mosquitos really thrive in
all regions. One of the most common and dangerous disease caused by them are
(known locally as) "Demam Berdarah" with the literal translation is "Bloody
Fever", i don't know if it is the same with the "dengue fever" stated in the
article (i have a bad English). This disease is very dangerous especially in
rainy season, when there are very many water puddle everywhere and the
mosquitos breed. Sometimes hospitals have a very tough time here when the
patients start flowing in a very large volumes. So i am grateful to bill gates
for giving a grant for solving this problem

~~~
masklinn
> One of the most common and dangerous disease caused by them are (known
> locally as) "Demam Berdarah" with the literal translation is "Bloody Fever",
> i don't know if it is the same with the "dengue fever" stated in the article
> (i have a bad English)

Using wikipedia, the Indonesian "Demam Berdarah" article is linked to the
English "Denge Fever" article, so probably.

~~~
soneca
also, in Brazil we call Dengue and the main prevention tactic is indeed to
eliminate the "water puddle everywhere" so the mosquitoes can't breed. So,
very probably the same.

~~~
indralukmana
Yeah, every rainy season there are some kind of campaigns here to bury or burn
garbages, regularly clean or change water containers, etc. To minimize the
breeding grounds for the mosquitos.

------
jtheory
Last month I spent 2 weeks in Rwanda with my wife & daughters, visiting two
friends who have been there for about a year. One of them has also spent a lot
of time in Tanzania and elsewhere in Africa.

Rwanda is land-locked and largely high-altitude, so malaria is not nearly so
prevalent there, but it's still around.

It's already preventable -- we came with a sufficient supply of antimalarial
pills, but they're so expensive it's obviously not a solution. We got yellow
fever vaccinations before coming -- that was a no-brainer -- and we actively
avoided mosquito bites, esp. for the little ones. My friend who has traveled
widely in Africa doesn't take anti-malarials -- too pricey -- has gotten
malaria, once, and it put him in the hospital for a couple of days.

He says many of the people he knows have had it, multiple times -- it's just a
fact of life, and it sucks, but (probably) you'll live, and then have some
protection against getting it again.

Gates talks about it as being debilitating -- apparently it's not always so
bad, if you've had it before (and people talk about having "a touch of the
malaria"!), but generally he's on the mark about the costs.

~~~
masklinn
> It's already preventable -- we came with a sufficient supply of antimalarial
> pills

There's just one problem with that one — aside from costs for third-world
regions: [http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2014/03/25/can-we-
be...](http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2014/03/25/can-we-beat-drug-
resistant-malaria-at-its-birthplace/)

> Gates talks about it as being debilitating -- apparently it's not always so
> bad

At the social level it is debilitating, without good treatments there's a high
risk of acute respiratory distress and renal failure, and more importantly in
children cerebral malaria causes direct brain damage and regular malaria
causes anemia, leading to increased risks of cognitive deficits and
behavioural disorders.

~~~
jtheory
> > It's already preventable -- we came with a sufficient supply of
> antimalarial pills, but they're so expensive it's obviously not a solution.

> There's just one problem with that one — aside from costs for third-world
> regions: [http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2014/03/25/can-we-
> be...](http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2014/03/25/can-we-beat-drug-
> resistant-malaria-at-its-birthplace/)

Good point -- the expense is serious, but also widely using low levels of
drugs that are effective _treatments_ as antimalarials means giving the
parasite lots more great opportunities to evolve resistance (which is already
happening, and is a serious upcoming problem).

> At the social level it is debilitating...

Yup, I agreed with Gates' conclusions; I was trying to share some direct
experience.

------
Aardwolf
Wow, 50,000 snake deaths per year!

Living in Europe, I've never seen snakes except in a zoo.

How do you avoid them in a country with snakes? Can they pop up anywhere out
of nowhere?

~~~
oska
It's mostly that the snakes avoid you. Snakes don't see humans as food and so
mostly get out of the way when humans approach.

In Australia, where I live, it's said that even in the suburbs there will be a
snake living somewhere close by. But most people will rarely ever see a snake
and most snake bites are from people being foolish, like trying to kill a
cornered snake.

Only four to six Australians suffer a fatal snake bite each year, and this is
with our famous collection of highly venomous snakes [1]. I understand that
fatal snake bites are _much_ more common in India though, and I guess that's
from population pressure and many more Indians living a rural life.

[1] [http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/topics/science-
enviro...](http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/topics/science-
environment/2012/07/australias-10-most-dangerous-snakes)

~~~
anotherevan
The way I had it explained to me by a first aide instructor, although gram for
gram of venom, Australian snakes are some of the worst, the delivery system is
not as efficient.

Venomous Australian snakes generally have a groove down the outside of the
tooth which the venom runs down. So when bitten a lot of venom will get soaked
into the clothing, and it generally goes into the lymph node system more than
into the bloodstream.

Whereas Indian snakes have a hollow tooth like a hypodermic needle which
delivers the venom efficiently into the bloodstream.

------
guscost
Not to be That Guy, but millions and millions of these deaths were
preventable. The UN vote to effectively ban DDT has got to be one of the worst
public health disasters in history. It is sickening.

[http://www.fightingmalaria.org/article.aspx?id=1862](http://www.fightingmalaria.org/article.aspx?id=1862)

[http://perc.org/articles/legacy-ddt-ban](http://perc.org/articles/legacy-ddt-
ban)

[http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ddt-use-to-
combat-...](http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ddt-use-to-combat-
malaria/)

[http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/15583-dd...](http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/15583-ddt-
breeds-death)

~~~
zerohm
Why trade a public health disaster for an environment disaster that will
likely lead to a different public health disaster? Current restrictions seem
reasonable.

"The Stockholm Convention, which took effect in 2004, outlawed several
persistent organic pollutants, and restricted DDT use to vector control. The
Convention has been ratified by more than 170 countries and is endorsed by
most environmental groups. Recognizing that total elimination in many malaria-
prone countries is currently unfeasible because there are few affordable or
effective alternatives, public health use is exempt from the ban pending
acceptable alternatives."

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ddt#Restrictions_on_usage](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ddt#Restrictions_on_usage)

~~~
guscost
> Why trade a public health disaster for an environment disaster that will
> likely lead to a different public health disaster?

This is a false dichotomy. And regarding your other point:

“Every life saved this year in a poor country diminishes the quality of life
for subsequent generations.” -Paul Ehrlich, 1968

“By using DDT, we reduce mortality rates in underdeveloped countries without
the consideration of how to support the increase in populations.” -Michael
McCloskey, 1971

“So my chief quarrel with DDT, in hindsight, is that it has greatly added to
the population problem.” -Alexander King, 1990

"An end to the continued domestic usage of the pesticide was decreed on June
14, 1972, when William D. Ruckelshaus, Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency, issued an order finally cancelling nearly all remaining
Federal registrations of DDT products."

[http://www2.epa.gov/aboutepa/ddt-ban-takes-
effect](http://www2.epa.gov/aboutepa/ddt-ban-takes-effect)

"WHO actively promoted indoor residual spraying for malaria control until the
early 1980s when increased health and environmental concerns surrounding DDT
caused the organization to stop promoting its use and to focus instead on
other means of prevention."

[http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2006/pr50/en/](http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2006/pr50/en/)

"Thanks largely to the use of DDT in Namibia, malaria related hospital
admissions and deaths fell by 92% (29,059 to 2,264) and 96% (1,370 to 46)
between 2001 and 2009. Similar trends have been seen in Botswana, South
Africa, and Swaziland. For these benefits to be outweighed by risks requires
reproducible evidence that DDT is dangerous, but none exists. WHO’s latest
assessment found no evidence for concern “about levels of exposure for any of
the end-points that were assessed” in carcinogenicity, reproductive toxicity,
or developmental toxicity.

Yet despite this endorsement and admirable malaria control results, UNEP is
trying to eliminate DDT again. As major UNEP donors, including the European
Union, have endorsed WHO’s position, UNEP’s motivations are unclear."

[http://www.bmj.com/content/345/bmj.e6801?ijkey=H4KijaZlhGvkD...](http://www.bmj.com/content/345/bmj.e6801?ijkey=H4KijaZlhGvkDLK&keytype=ref)

~~~
zerohm
So, you are arguing that DDT is being banned simply as a means of population
control?

"WHO actively promoted indoor residual spraying for malaria control until the
early 1980s when increased health and environmental concerns surrounding DDT
caused the organization to stop promoting its use and to focus instead on
other means of prevention."

By your quote there, it sounds like the World Health Organization stopped
promoting the use of DDT 30 in homes years ago due to health and environmental
concerns. Is that part of the conspiracy too?

~~~
guscost
It seems to be more of a regrettable alliance between chemical companies,
conservationists who refuse to compromise when it comes to the environment,
their elected representatives, and yes, a few Club-of-Rome type genocidal
misanthropes who actually think that the planet is not big enough for everyone
and so other people should have to die.

A conspiracy only in the sense that Julian Assange uses the word.

------
frozenport
How about a person with a car?

`Approximately 1.24 million deaths occurred on the world’s roads in 2010` WHO

~~~
theandrewbailey
Also: deer.

~~~
jowiar
And moose, for our hockey-playing friends.

------
orky56
Same link and same title? I'm confused
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7665106](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7665106)

~~~
tokenadult
Here the submission is not with the canonical URL, which spoofed the duplicate
submission detector. It's too bad the previous submission had only one
comment, a crap comment, so it's a good thing the article was submitted again.

~~~
orky56
Agreed. Must have missed the difference in URL.

------
swehner
For comparison, wikipedia's list of causes of death ranked by frequency:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_causes_of_death_by_rat...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_causes_of_death_by_rate#Causes_ranked_by_frequency)

------
mattmaroon
Not sure where he got 10 wolf deaths per year. The average number of wolf
deaths per century is less than that. Not the most relevant comment I suppose,
but it makes me curious about his data collection process.

~~~
tootie
Globally?

------
brianbreslin
One of the key innovations in the development of the Panama Canal was the
fighting of malaria/yellow fever. Without understanding this, the canal
wouldn't have been built, and Panama would probably look a lot more like
Nicaragua than like Hong Kong.

[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/general-...](http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/general-
article/panama-fever/)

------
TomGullen
I think it'd be interesting to see these weighted by animal populations

------
rgejman
Cows ought to be on that list as well. They kill 10-20 people per year in the
US alone. [http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/31/dangerous-
cow...](http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/31/dangerous-cows/)

------
reuwsaat
It's funny[0] that "Number of deaths" = "Number of people killed by animals".
Perhaps if humans allowed that the deaths other animals is also of consequence
we'd have a healthier relationship with nature. It's ranting about your home
being destroyed by a hurricane, especially since you just rebuilt it after
last years hurricane. Deaths by malaria and the destruction caused by
hurricanes always terrible, but we need to look into mitigating such harm both
by working with and against nature (which we are a part of, so I take issue a
little bit even making that distinction, but, for the sake of discussion).

[0] funny = sad

------
bws99
Not seeing domestic cats on this list, though I suppose they only have
murderous intentions and are too fluffy to actually execute on them.

~~~
cperciva
Cats carry _Toxoplasma gondii_ , which is estimated to cause 750 deaths each
year in the US alone. Around the world it's probably many times that number --
making _Felis domesticus_ responsible (albeit indirectly) for more deaths than
lions, elephants, hippopotamuses, and crocodiles combined.

~~~
morsch
That's it, I'm getting rid of my pet cat in favor of a hippopotamus. Safety
first.

~~~
dm2
I'd be willing to bet that pet hippopotamuses are more likely to kill their
owners than pet cats.

[http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/technology/2011/11/pet-hippo-
kil...](http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/technology/2011/11/pet-hippo-kills-its-
owner/)

~~~
Argorak
Hippos are very aggressive and territorial. Also, they are surprisingly fast,
especially in water. Many wild animals, even predators, won't move towards you
unless you come real close. Hippos move towards you even if you just pass by
the waterline of the sea that they are in.

Also, Hippos don't kill by biting you. They drown you by dragging you
underwater - it's not that they misjudge their force.

Another problem is that they come out at night and like warm underground -
streets for example. When I was in Africa last time, there was a horrible
street accident with 17 dead as a pickup hit a hippo standing on the road at
night. Grey, behind a corner -> bang.

What makes Hippos so dangerous to humans is they we are misjudging them as
tame, slow creatures that mind their own thing.

------
calbear81
What about the Photonic Fence that Bill Gates funded
([http://intellectualventureslab.com/?page_id=6738](http://intellectualventureslab.com/?page_id=6738))?

I think it was criticized because it required electrical power to run and that
would have been a no go in sub-Saharan Africa but I imagine it would work
great everywhere else.

------
sethammons
Can someone with better search-fu help me understand how freshwater snails
kill humans?

Google is only giving me this same blog post.

~~~
jcomis
The snails harbor a parasitic worm which they pass on to the water supply. The
worms then use humans as a host and lay a large amount of eggs in the host.
The worms and the eggs themselves cause an enormous strain on the hosts liver,
kidneys, digestive, and urinary system. They essentially migrate through the
body to get to the liver where they can lay thousands of eggs a day. Most eggs
then enter the intestines in order to pass out of the host and back into the
water supply to mature in snails and start the cycle over.

The real danger is you don't need to drink the water, just come in contact
with it. So stepping in a puddle could cause infection. I was just in Colombia
and there was a campaign trying to raise awareness on this so I learned a
bunch about it. Scary stuff!

------
davidw
In a list that's supposed to point out "unexpected" killers, snakes are,
interestingly, far and away the deadliest of the animals you'd actually think
of when someone says "dangerous animals".

------
josefresco
What about a horse? I seem to remember reading somewhere that they caused more
human injuries and deaths than many other "dangerous" animals.... or maybe I'm
remembering wrong.

~~~
anotherevan
and vending machines.

------
islon
Mosquitos are like heart attacks: they kill thousands/millions but they are
boring so nobody care.

Sharks are like terrorists: they kill just some dozens but are super scary.

------
radisb
I would like to see the exact same graph but having instead as value the
humans killed per unit of the animal. I doubt if the mosquito would be on top.

------
jmnicolas
I'm surprised by the wolves. I though it was quasi a myth that they killed
humans.

------
rokhayakebe
So much for dogs, Man's best friend.

------
cloudhead
Pretty misleading I'd say.. Malaria kills people, not mosquitos, mosquitos
have nothing to do with Malaria. Would be like saying rats are deadly because
they carried the plague.

Also I interact with humans every day and I'm still alive.

I understand where it's coming from, but it's more of a historical post-factum
analysis rather than a indication of which animals you should stay away from.

~~~
S_A_P
That is the same as saying its not the snake that kills you its the poison.
Mosquitos do have something to do with Malaria as they carry it, willingly or
not. I live in Houston where there are plenty of mosquitos and plenty of
mosquito related illnesses/Deaths each year.(West Nile, Bird Flu) Mosquitos
are a serious nuisance, and to top it off I am pretty allergic to the bites,
mine swell up and itch pretty severely. I would love to see more research put
into controlling these things. Regardless of the fact that they are unwitting
carriers of Malaria and other disease, they deserve more attention for
eradication. Hopefully in a way that doesn't involve blanketing an area with
pesticide...

~~~
cloudhead
Well, the difference is Malaria is a kind of living being in itself, it uses
mosquitos to spread. On the other hand, poison is produced by the snake, and
the snake uses it to survive.

------
brianstorms
"What am I, chopped liver?" \- every bacterium and virus, everywhere

~~~
TheCoelacanth
Neither of those are animals.

------
Zarkonnen
Maxing out my pedantry score, the actual answer is "humans" followed by
"snakes". Mosquitos themselves are not dangerous, and malaria parasites are
not animals.

~~~
r0h1n
Okay, I'll bite and try to outmax your pedantry:

If a mosquito bite can infect and kill, why isn't a mosquito dangerous?

Alternately, if I take your logic that "mosquitoes themselves are not
dangerous", why can I not extend that to humans and say human beings
themselves are not dangerous?

~~~
masklinn
> If a mosquito bite can infect and kill, why isn't a mosquito dangerous?

Because it's not the mosquito itself doing that (as opposed to, say, a
rattlesnake), it's a parasite hitching a ride on an "innocent" (of that
anyway) mosquito. Much like e.g. bats and henipaviruses, bats are a resevoir
species but nobody in their right mind would say that Mark Preston was killed
by a fruitbat.

~~~
TeMPOraL
Is there a difference though? A snake is a vehicle for delivering poison,
which is a chemical compound disrupting your biological machinery. A mosquito
is a vehicle for delivering pieces of biological machinery that disrupt your
own biological machinery.

The snake kills in the same way the mosquito does. The snake's poison kills in
the same way malaria parasites do. Both statements are true, they're just
operating on different abstraction levels.

~~~
masklinn
> Is there a difference though?

Yes.

> A snake is a vehicle for delivering poison, which is a chemical compound
> disrupting your biological machinery.

The poison is the snake's own weapon and defence, not a hitch-hiker, and
poison delivery is part of a snake's normal bite process (if the snake is
poisonous).

> A mosquito is a vehicle for delivering pieces of biological machinery that
> disrupt your own biological machinery.

No, the mosquito itself delivers some saliva and draws blood, that somebody
else takes advantage of this can hardly be ascribed to the mosquito's fault.
Again, compare to other reservoirs, or to a dog giving you rabies. The dog
didn't kill you, rabies did, the dog was the unwitting carrier of the
infection rabies is not a weaponised dog secretion.

------
atmosx
"[...] malaria [...] threatens half of the world’s population and causes
billions of dollars in lost _productivity_ annually."

billions of dollars in lost productivity?!?!?

NOTE: Not in healthcare. Because there's no health-care Central Africa where
malaria does the biggest damage. It causes _billions of dollars in lost
productivity_. Now we need to cure it.

------
ogig
> What makes mosquitoes so dangerous? Despite their innocuous-sounding
> name—Spanish for “little fly”—they carry devastating diseases.

Spanish for "little fly" could be "mosquita", a diminutive of "mosca" (fly).
Mosquito is the spanish term for mosquito. While mosquito and mosca share the
same latin origin "musca" i dont think any spanish speaker will understand
mosquito as little fly.

Just a nitpick in case you were going to amaze someone with magazine learned
spanish terms.

~~~
mootothemax
It would have been quicker to tap "Mosquito etymology" into Google than it
would have been to write up your incredibly petty comment:

 _1580s, from Spanish mosquito "little gnat," diminutive of mosca "fly,"_

[http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=mosquito](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=mosquito)

I genuinely dislike writing such harsh comments, and in this case have let the
frustration of seeing this comment as the top-rated one on an otherwise
discussion-worthy topic boil over.

~~~
ogig
What about consulting the actual, present day, normative instead of the middle
age origin?

[http://lema.rae.es/drae/?val=mosquito](http://lema.rae.es/drae/?val=mosquito)
[http://lema.rae.es/drae/?val=mosca](http://lema.rae.es/drae/?val=mosca)

Sorry about frustrating you, and i mean it.

~~~
mootothemax
_What about consulting the actual, present day, normative instead of the
middle age origin?_

Because one's the reason it got its name, and the other's day-to-day speech?

 _Sorry about frustrating you, and i mean it._

No worries, and I'm sorry if I caused anything on my part.

I read your comment as picking holes in an article purely for the sake of
picking holes, which is something I find frustrating _waaaaay_ out of
proportion.

~~~
ogig
The etymology of the word, while interesting, is not relevant to my assertion.
I only said that "Mosquito" is NOT the spanish word for "small fly". Not
normative, and not day-to-day speech.

I did not want to pick holes, and it also bothers me sometimes, but the first
sentence of the writing had a glaring error that caught my attention. I do
think you tried to pick holes on my hole picking.

I linked you to the normative, actual definition of mosquito, because that's
what you need to use to prove me wrong. Not the 1600 definition.

~~~
mootothemax
_The etymology of the word, while interesting, is not relevant to my
assertion._

This is where you're going wrong.

~~~
ogig
How is that? The roots of a word and its current meaning may differ greatly.
You can take mosquito as an example, wich originated at "small fly" but now it
means "the blood sucker insect".

Consider for example the word "Musket", you wouldn't be here debating that a
musket is a fly, right?. Well, both share the same latin origin in musca, like
mosquito. That's my point.

