UK to give 'Africa' £500, 000, 000 to fight malaria

#1
If my ears didn't deceive me whilst listening to this morning's news on radio 4, we are going to give half a billion pounds (edited to correct numerical dyslexia) in some generalised fight against malaria. It's endemic in certain climates. Can it be fought ? Is it like deciding to live in an earthquake or hurricane zone ? Shit happens ........

And this on top of hearing we borrowed three times more this August than the previous one - £16 BILLION - because interest rates have gone up.

We're doomed Captain Mainwaring, we're doomed ....................

D_B
 
#2
it can be thought quite effectivly pesticides and insect nets jobs jobbed.
draine swamps as well not very eco frinedly but can be done.
less chronic disease more chance of having a work force etc.
 
#3
Since we are awash with money it would seem churlish not to give Africans a good wedge. I feel sorry for people who have an illness and get told by NICE that money is not available for a drug to help them.
 
#4
WHO (World Health org.) offered to eradicate malaria in Africa many many years ago but too many African "leaders" wanted too much money for allowing them to do it. "How much you pay me to kill the mosquitoes in my country??"
T.I.A.
Scandalous to even think about giving them more aid, I see how some of it is 'spent'!! (I would give them Fuck-all and I work here in Africa.)
I'm all in favour of AIDS for Africa though, I think it's doing a great job of sterilising the gene pool.
 
#5
UK to give 'Africa' £500,000,000 to buy more Mercedes Benz limosines


Fixed that for you
 

OldSnowy

LE
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#8
An interesting article about Malaria at this link:
Smacking Down Malaria Misconceptions | Watts Up With That?
It's not a simple matter, but made worse by the banning of DDT in order to protect fluffy things.

Interesting extracts:
For instance, malaria incidences in Sri Lanka (Ceylon) dropped from 2.8 million in the 1940s to less than 20 in 1963 (WHO 1999a, Whelan 1992). DDT spraying was stopped in 1964, and by 1969 the number of cases had grown to 2.5 million. Similarly, malaria was nearly eradicated in India in the early 1960s, and its resurgence coincided with shortages in DDT (Sharma 1996). The population at high- to medium risk of contracting malaria in Colombia and Peru doubled between 1996 and 1997 (Roberts et al. 2000b). Malaria has also reappeared in several other areas where it had previously been suppressed, if not eradicated (e.g., Madagascar, Swaziland, the two Koreas, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan; Roberts et al. 2000b, and references therein). Similarly, Roberts et al. (1997) showed that Latin American countries (e.g., Ecuador, Belize, Guyana, Bolivia, Paraguay, Brazil and Venezuela) which had discontinued or decreased spraying of DDT inside homes saw malaria rates increase. Guarda et al. (1999) also note that in 1988, when DDT use was discontinued, there were no cases of Plasmodium falciparium reported in Loreto, Peru. The number of cases increased to 140 in 1991. By 1997, there were over 54,000 cases and 85 deaths (see, also, Goklany 2000c).
“But the best argument for indoor-spraying of DDT is that in many areas where malaria experienced a resurgence, reinstating DDT use once again led to declines in malaria cases. For example, Ecuador, which had previously seen its malaria rates rebound once DDT spraying had been reduced, saw those rates decline once again by 61 percent since 1993, when DDT use was increased again (Roberts et al. 1997). The same cycle occurred in Madagascar where the malaria epidemic of 1984-86, which occurred after the suspension of DDT use, killed 100,000 people. After two annual cycles of DDT spraying, malaria incidence declined 90 percent (Roberts et al. 2000b).”
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
#9
I hate to be a pedant but isn't 50 million £50,000,000?

Interesting historical aside - it was Slim's XIV Army which made medical history and proved in Burma that malaria could be fought effectively on a large-scale.
 

Bouillabaisse

LE
Book Reviewer
#10
In the 60's and 70's malaria was all but eradicated worldwide by liberal use of DDT. Then they discovered that DDT was dangerous and banned it. Result - re-emergence of malaria as a massive killer. A lot of money now goes into malaria eradication. Forgive cynical me, but its not really in a lot of people's interest to fully eradicate this. What would they do then?
 
#11
There could be a cheaper way out of this. Has anybody asked the mossies how much they'll charge to eradicate the Africans?
 
#12
filthyphil. You will never get promoted if you come up with realistic solutions.
 
#14
its worse than that dfifd is putting together a business plan to aid plans to fight malaria.
off the top of my hat.
build factory in Africa to make mossier nets
b buy shit load of ddt spray place where mossies hang out done
 
#15
In the 60's and 70's malaria was all but eradicated worldwide by liberal use of DDT. Then they discovered that DDT was dangerous and banned it. Result - re-emergence of malaria as a massive killer. A lot of money now goes into malaria eradication. Forgive cynical me, but its not really in a lot of people's interest to fully eradicate this. What would they do then?

I'll try and find some references, but there's a school of thought that suggests that do-gooders who campaigned for the banning of DDT caused far more suffering from insect borne diseases and plasmodia than DDT would ever have caused were it to have been extensively used.

And wasn't DDT responsible for eradicating malaria in Italy at the end of WWII?

And in Argentina in the late 1940s
“God Bless General Perón”: DDT and the Endgame of Malaria Eradication in Argentina in the 1940s — J Hist Med Allied Sci
Login required I'm afraid, but the title of the Journal Article is “God Bless General Pero´n”: DDT and the
Endgame of Malaria Eradication in Argentina in the 1940s
 
#16
FFS, why are we trying to interfere with Darwinism In Action?! Look on the bright side; the more Africans die of malaria, the more food there is for those who are left!
 
#17
FFS, why are we trying to interfere with Darwinism In Action?! Look on the bright side; the more Africans die of malaria, the more food there is for those who are left!
Put it this way - I'd rather divert spending from AIDS programs to Malaria ones. Notwithstanding your point on Darwinism in action, I work in Malarial countries, and don't want to catch it. I know a handful of people (expats) who have died after contracting it, but I know of none who has died of - or contracted - the HIV Virus.

Going back to the Wa-Benzi post, yup. I agree. And look at what happened to the polio programme in Nigeria a few years back - the almost complete eradication of the disease sabotaged by politicians in the Muslim north.
 
#19
dogs_bollox said:
UK to give 'Africa' £500, 000, 000 to fight malaria

If my ears didn't deceive me whilst listening to this morning's news on radio 4, we are going to give £50 million in some generalised fight against malaria.
Make up your mind. Was it 50 or 500 million????

It's moe than your ears that are deceiving you.

dogs_bollox said:
We're doomed Captain Mainwaring, we're doomed ....................
We certainly are if you are an example of fiscal and arithmetic prudence.


PS. Here's another headline for you: UK to give 'Afghanistan' £4 BILLION per year to fight farmers and farming
 
#20
Clegg seems to be as bad as Brown for giving away other peoples money. Anyone would think that there aren't problems in this country. Why he needed to go to the UN (apart from avoiding criticism at the conference) is beyond me. We now have political class which hasn't a clue about how ordinary people live. Revolution !!
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top