1. Joined
    07 Sep '05
    Moves
    35068
    04 Mar '10 17:53
    Originally posted by trev33
    annually the death toll from malaria has been consistently around one million since 1960 (that's the furthest back records i could find) with nigeria topping the list.
    I've not looked into this in any depth - but the population of Africa has roughly tripled since 1960. So a consistent death toll suggests something is reducing the effect of malaria.
  2. Joined
    10 Jan '08
    Moves
    16942
    04 Mar '10 19:06
    Originally posted by mtthw
    I've not looked into this in any depth - but the population of Africa has roughly tripled since 1960. So a consistent death toll suggests something is reducing the effect of malaria.
    that was a typo on my part... i meant 1990 😳

    In the early 1960s, only 10% the world's population was at risk of contracting malaria. This rose to 40% as mosquitoes developed resistance to pesticides and malaria parasites developed resistance to treatment drugs. Malaria is now spreading to areas previously free of the disease.


    http://archive.idrc.ca/books/reports/1996/01-07e.html
  3. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    05 Mar '10 09:04
    Originally posted by trev33
    don't make up numbers. you have no idea how many days are lost at work because of malaria... plus mosquito nets are mostly used in bed, yes? what happens the rest of the time?
    You are right, I shouldn't make up numbers. Lets just say that I know for a fact that before treated nets a number of days work were being lost to absence due to malaria and after the arrival of treated nets those lost days were significantly reduced.
    Further, I know for a fact that a number of employers gave out treated nets to their employees specifically because it made economic sense to do so.

    ... but the main concerns has to be the number of infant fatalities.
    The main concern to whom? You made a claim about cost effectiveness, and from the employers (and possibly the governments) point of view, the primary economic factor is days work lost due to sickness. For the government the a major economic factor is the cost of healthcare.

    it's cost effective to look after your workers yes... but it it really cost effective to prevent the vast majority of malaria cases?
    Yes it is.

    (which is totally possible) is it cost effective to eradicate world poverty?
    Cost effective to whom?
  4. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    05 Mar '10 09:10
    Originally posted by trev33
    'third world' governments are generally useless at helping their people when given aid. would also add that richer nations are good at promising aid but no were near as good at delivering.
    Third world countries don't always get it right and corruption and misuse of monies is common. But to call them outright useless is not justifiable. I grew up in a third world country and was given a free education, free healthcare and nowadays free HIV medication (if I needed it) and practically free treated mosquito nets all largely courtesy of a third world government.
    I am equally critical of the richer nations who have played a large role in keeping poor countries poor in the first place - though they are not entirely to blame.
  5. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    05 Mar '10 09:14
    Originally posted by trev33
    In the early 1960s, only 10% the world's population was at risk of contracting malaria. This rose to 40% as mosquitoes developed resistance to pesticides and malaria parasites developed resistance to treatment drugs. Malaria is now spreading to areas previously free of the disease.
    In the 60s in Zambia there were massive campaigns spraying insecticides in peoples houses and fields. For various reasons that died down in the 80s and 90s and resulted in the spread of malaria.
    More recently those spraying campaigns have resumed and in conjunction with treated mosquito nets have been very successful.
    I don't know how the rest of Africa is doing but I believe the drive for treated mosquito nets has been Africa wide.
  6. Standard memberAThousandYoung
    Shoot the Squatters?
    tinyurl.com/43m7k8bw
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    26660
    05 Mar '10 13:27
    Relying too much on chemicals can lead to resistant strains of mosquito. It's good to have a completely different technology to complement the treated nets.
  7. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    05 Mar '10 18:57
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    Relying too much on chemicals can lead to resistant strains of mosquito. It's good to have a completely different technology to complement the treated nets.
    A very good point. A related point in favor of the zapper would be if it could recognize which species of mosquito it was. It claims to be able to distinguish male from female but I fail to see the benefit, whereas distinguishing species would help to eliminate one species in favor of others.
  8. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    53223
    05 Mar '10 23:37
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    A very good point. A related point in favor of the zapper would be if it could recognize which species of mosquito it was. It claims to be able to distinguish male from female but I fail to see the benefit, whereas distinguishing species would help to eliminate one species in favor of others.
    The benefit there is, females are the ones that go for blood and therefore they are the malaria vector. So if the zapper tells male from female, it is twice as efficient watt for watt in its zapping duties.
    Besides, is there such a thing as a GOOD mosquito?
  9. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    06 Mar '10 06:33
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    The benefit there is, females are the ones that go for blood and therefore they are the malaria vector. So if the zapper tells male from female, it is twice as efficient watt for watt in its zapping duties.
    I didn't think about saving watts. I guess that might be important if it was battery powered. My concern was that getting rid of the males would also help in getting rid of the mosquito's in general.

    Besides, is there such a thing as a GOOD mosquito?
    Only one species carries malaria. If you try to wipe out all mosquito's you might have to get every last one before you drive them extinct. You may also negatively affect the environment. Whereas if you are selective and only get rid of the malaria carrying species, the whole in the ecosystem will be filled with the other species and you may find it easier to drive it to extinction while also not causing as much environmental damage. But then again, I would probably prefer to get rid of all mosquito's, and I believe that has been done in some parts of the world.
  10. Standard memberAThousandYoung
    Shoot the Squatters?
    tinyurl.com/43m7k8bw
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    26660
    06 Mar '10 13:541 edit
  11. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    53223
    06 Mar '10 14:25
    What do mosquito's bring to the table besides disease vectors? For instance, it was discovered the absence of wolves in Canada changed the whole scene with elk growing out of proportion and destroying trees which effected bird populations, now with the re-introduction of wolves in certain places, the ecology is correcting itself. What kind of damage would be done if mosquito's disappeared? Have you seen the poor beleaguered moose and such in the arctic, where they are surrounded by clouds of mosquito's and can only find brief respite by going into the water? Doesn't sound like an ecologically sound thing going on to me, only the torture of poor mammals.
  12. Standard memberAThousandYoung
    Shoot the Squatters?
    tinyurl.com/43m7k8bw
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    26660
    06 Mar '10 14:49
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    What do mosquito's bring to the table besides disease vectors? For instance, it was discovered the absence of wolves in Canada changed the whole scene with elk growing out of proportion and destroying trees which effected bird populations, now with the re-introduction of wolves in certain places, the ecology is correcting itself. What kind of damage would b ...[text shortened]... n't sound like an ecologically sound thing going on to me, only the torture of poor mammals.
    I imagine there would be food shortages for fish or whatever eats the larva. Apparently there aren't too many mosquito eaters out there. Dragonflies are one.
  13. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    07 Mar '10 14:42
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    What do mosquito's bring to the table besides disease vectors?
    All animals and plants in a given environment interact with the rest of the environment. Something is eating a large quantity of mosquito larvae and adults or we would have a lot more of them.
    The real question is whether those animals have alternatives and whether those animals are of value to us.
    I suspect that some fish, spiders and an number of other insect predators would be affected, but it is quite possible that another insect would fill the gap.
    I know that mosquito's are currently found in more places than they were before due to human cities.
    I also know that mosquito's have been driven extinct in many places.
    Considering the heavy death toll and enormous economic impact caused by malaria, I think that the ecological impact of eliminating mosquito's would have to be enormous for us to not deliberately try to drive the mosquito extinct.
  14. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    53223
    09 Mar '10 00:051 edit
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    All animals and plants in a given environment interact with the rest of the environment. Something is eating a large quantity of mosquito larvae and adults or we would have a lot more of them.
    The real question is whether those animals have alternatives and whether those animals are of value to us.
    I suspect that some fish, spiders and an number of othe ito's would have to be enormous for us to not deliberately try to drive the mosquito extinct.
    I guess the food part is real, bats and birds eat insects and I would guess in a place like the arctic they would be a fairly major food source considering the massive population of mosquito's there. Still, in places like the Arctic, it would only be seasonal, they can't reproduce in cold weather so after they go, some other food source has to take their place, whatever that would be, maybe mice? Donno.

    I guess bats up in the arctic (if there are any in fact) would think they were in food heaven, just open their mouths and fly through the mosquito clouds like a baleen whale catching krill!
  15. Joined
    10 Jan '08
    Moves
    16942
    12 Mar '10 13:18
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    I think that the ecological impact of eliminating mosquito's would have to be enormous for us to not deliberately try to drive the mosquito extinct.
    that's absurd. the human population is already growing beyond our means, the last thing we need is to completely destroy a certain species, while potentially harming others to further enhance the need to use our precious resources. especially for a completely preventable disease like malaria... if a government can't adequately prevent the spread of malaria what chance do they have of feeding the extra mouths?
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree