
U.S. Malaria Donations Saved Almost 2M African Children - robertwiblin
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/26/health/us-foreign-aid-malaria.html?module=WatchingPortal&region=c-column-middle-span-region&pgType=Homepage&action=click&mediaId=thumb_square&state=standard&contentPlacement=6&version=internal&contentCollection=www.nytimes.com&contentId=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2017%2F06%2F26%2Fhealth%2Fus-foreign-aid-malaria.html&eventName=Watching-article-click
======
yourapostasy
Lest anyone think to run the headline numbers in the article [1] and think
each child was saved at the cost of $2,058.82 USD across 7 years, the study
cited in the article only looked at the 0-5 years cohort, and did not examine
any other age cohorts.

The President's Malaria Initiative web site's About page [2] shows the extent
of their program's impact upon lives protected by various measures they
introduced. I imagine there might be manifold beneficial impacts upon the
developed world as well, because the anti-mosquito-oriented measures do not
distinguish between malarial versus Zika-bearing mosquitoes, and Zika is
particularly economically debilitating in the developed nations.

[1]
[http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=(500000000*(2017-2010))...](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=\(500000000*\(2017-2010\)\)%2F1700000)

[2] [https://www.pmi.gov/about](https://www.pmi.gov/about)

------
melling
i've donated nets in the past, but I wonder if they ended up being used for
fishing instead.

[https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/25/world/africa/mosquito-
net...](https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/25/world/africa/mosquito-nets-for-
malaria-spawn-new-epidemic-overfishing.html)

I recently made it to (South) Africa for the first time. It was an incredible
trip:

[https://www.instagram.com/p/BVtyKWylFkt/](https://www.instagram.com/p/BVtyKWylFkt/)

[https://www.instagram.com/p/BVtyq0flJvL/](https://www.instagram.com/p/BVtyq0flJvL/)

[https://www.instagram.com/p/BVty4K8FjBG/](https://www.instagram.com/p/BVty4K8FjBG/)

I wish they/we could eliminate the malaria problem.

~~~
jstanley
> I've donated nets in the past, but I wonder if they ended up being used for
> fishing instead.

If the reason for donating the nets is to save lives, then this is no bad
thing, right? Those people are putting the nets to the most effective purpose
they can find for them. No problem, I say.

EDIT: OK, maybe these nets are suboptimal for fishing. Fine. If the people the
nets are going to are in more desperate need of fishing nets than mosquito
nets, and you don't want them to use mosquito nets as fishing nets, then you
should be sending fishing nets instead of mosquito nets.

There's no honour in telling a hungry fisherman that the mosquito net he is
using to catch fish is harmful to the environment. He doesn't give a shit. He
either fishes with the net he has, or he starves.

~~~
alain_gilbert
I'll save you the reading:

\- Mosquito nets have much smaller holes than normal fishing nets, so they
trap almost all living organism, which is bad.

\- The nets are treated with toxic chemicals which kills the fish in the
ponds/rivers, and might be dangerous for humans who drink the water.

I would say it's bad.

~~~
thanksgiving
> The nets are treated with toxic chemicals which kills the fish in the
> ponds/rivers, and might be dangerous for humans who drink the water.

Are we at fault for handing them out without proper education? Do they know
that these nets are laced with poison? I mean if it only hurt the people who
are fishing, maybe I could live with it but it hurts everyone (kind of makes
me think of second hand smoke but worse).

Something they didn't bring up in the video is that a lot of fish (the net is
indiscriminate) can help keep mosquito population in check. Just another thing
to pile on the list.

Maybe we need to stop sending nets treating with toxic chemicals to that part
of the world. This just looks like a road paved with good intentions.

~~~
maxerickson
No, it's a sensible trade off.

Go look up pyrethroid insecticides and malaria and then contemplate whether
you'd rather risk sleeping in a treated net all the time or be sickened at
length or maybe dead.

------
nl
It's good to see such progress against a major disease. With this, the Gate's
programs and others maybe we can hope for the near elimination of malaria in
our lifetimes.

Fortunately Republican Congress members seem likely to reject[1] Trump's
proposed 11% cut to the program[2], even if it seems mostly because it was
setup under Bush, not because it is effective.

[1] [http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-budget-foreign-aid-
idU...](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-budget-foreign-aid-
idUSKBN18J2DC)

[2]
[http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2017/05/25/52987343...](http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2017/05/25/529873431/trumps-
proposed-budget-would-cut-2-2-billion-from-global-health-spending)

~~~
artursapek
You're suggesting they would have cut that because it was effective...?

~~~
rfrey
I think the suggestion is that cuts are largely determined by the regime that
instituted the program, independent of effectiveness.

~~~
nl
Yes, this.

------
jonathanjaeger
I don't know if this is a hard/cold way of looking at things, but I want a
bang for my back in donating to charity. I've (almost) exclusively give to
malaria foundations.

Even if you don't want to give, set your Amazon to smile.amazon and it will
donate a very small portion of your purchases to the charity of your choice.
It may add up to $50-$100 in money given on your behalf over time.

~~~
tootie
This is basically what the Gates Foundation does. The primarily focus on
infectious disease and malaria is a big one (along with HIV, TB and others).
They also dabble in charter schools and some other business, but the goal is
always bang for buck.

------
exhilaration
In addition to this article, the profile about Rear Adm. Timothy Ziemer, the
guy heading the effort, is also very interesting:
[https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/21/science/a-quiet-
approach-...](https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/21/science/a-quiet-approach-to-
bringing-down-malaria.html)

------
hamandcheese
We, as humans, have the capability to eradicate mosquitoes, which would in
turn prevent the spread of malaria and other mosquito-Bourne illnesses.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosquito_control#Proposals_t...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosquito_control#Proposals_to_eradicate_mosquitos)

~~~
oliv__
We, as humans, can't even run our own planet. Forget about mosquitoes.

------
nolepointer
And now they're all coming to Europe. Woo!

~~~
sumedh
All of them?

~~~
nolepointer
Probably. Progress, right?!

------
someSven
This will kill the rainforrest in Africa. Because the survivors will use it
for bushmeat, wood, jobs, fields for cows, ...

~~~
dotancohen
A friend of mine once retitled a similar headline "U.S. Malaria Donations
create an additional 2M starving Africans". I'll not add _my_ opinion of the
matter, but I would love to see intelligent discussion on the matter. Is
saving lives from disease just putting these same people on the path to
starvation?

~~~
ckarmann
No, because at the same time, starvation is decreasing even though population
is increasing. It's not a problem of too many people.

You don't create a self-sustainable economy by destroying human capital.

