World's First Malaria Vaccine in Pilot Program

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#1
Malaria is one of the of the most debilitating and pernicious dieseaes out there with around 200million cases a year and responsible for nearly half a million deaths annually.

If thus works this will be one of the greatest Vaccine interventions since Jenner divised the Small Pox Vaccine

World's first malaria vaccine to go to 360,000 African children - CNN
 
#2
Isn't it a bit of ethical dilemma saving half a million lives when the planet is so overcrowded

What if we cure all the major diseases in the third world, can the world cope with the population explosion?
 

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#3
Isn't it a bit of ethical dilemma saving half a million lives when the planet is so overcrowded

What if we cure all the major diseases in the third world, can the world cope with the population explosion?
It's been proven that by reducing susceptibility to infectious dieseaes and providing education to women actually reduces population growth in the long term.

Educating women gives them more economic opportunities and results in them having massively lower birthrates.

Similar goes for vaccines, vaccinations reduce infectious disease and reduce the size of families as the healthier smaller families are more economically productive, by being healthier and free of debilitating diseases that prevent them going to school and getting decent educations. The more educated and healthy a population is the less likely they are to have large families.
 
#4
Malaria is one of the of the most debilitating and pernicious dieseaes out there with around 200million cases a year and responsible for nearly half a million deaths annually.

If thus works this will be one of the greatest Vaccine interventions since Jenner divised the Small Pox Vaccine

World's first malaria vaccine to go to 360,000 African children - CNN
that's Africa fucked then, no way will they accept any sort of contraception, population will explode (or rather survival rates will) and they have no way of coping with it, stand by for the exodus from the dark continant
 
#5
I suspect the happy-clappy article is oversimplifying when they use the word 'vaccine'. Malaria is a protozoa, not a virus, after all. The protection provided is thought to be up to 40%, so I would think that the effect comes from an anti-protozoa agent of some sort and that someone has found/developed one which can build up a long-term effect effect with multiple infant doses. That is impressive, but the huge population increase (over and above current rates) will need to be supported with education and industrialisation, if the people concerned are to have any quality of life. As this hasn't happened by any sort of trickle-down effect from the umpteen billion spent so far, is there any support for colonisation to improve the place? Hmmm, thought not . . .
 
#6
We can't afford to cure malaria. It's an unspoken truth.
Much easier to divert attention to climate change.
Curing malaria will kill all on earth far quicker.
Too politically unpalatable to acknowledge that though. Would possibly be different if it mainly only affected people of a pale blue hue from the northern hemisphere.
 
#7
You can have substantive action against climate change, or you can fight nature pushing back against 2nd and 3rd world overpopulation.

You can't have both long term.
 
#8
You can have substantive action against climate change, or you can fight nature pushing back against 2nd and 3rd world overpopulation.

You can't have both long term.
Cuddly polar bears or ickle brown babies?

It's a conundrum, and no mistake.
 
#9
Third world despots don't like an educated populace who ask awkward questions or a middle class who resent being milch cows to keep the political elite cosied up to the gravy trough. Education leading to industrialisation will not be a priority. Stand by for an African population boom and mass emigration to where the free stuff is.
 
#10
It's been proven that by reducing susceptibility to infectious dieseaes and providing education to women actually reduces population growth in the long term.

Educating women gives them more economic opportunities and results in them having massively lower birthrates.

Similar goes for vaccines, vaccinations reduce infectious disease and reduce the size of families as the healthier smaller families are more economically productive, by being healthier and free of debilitating diseases that prevent them going to school and getting decent educations. The more educated and healthy a population is the less likely they are to have large families.


Thats the mantra, but it only seems to hold true for advanced western countries - not the majority of the developing /under-developed world. In fact the hard evidence there - massive population growth post WW2 - is starkly the opposite, i.e. that, due to aid and modern medicine, people breed at the same rate or even greater, and their progeny survive in greater numbers, in turn breeding at the elevated rate.

Many people who live or work in under-developed regions (including aid workers, incidentally) would say it goes more like this:

Better medicine = less infant mortality = huge families = economic deprivation and poverty

I recall this problem being discussed amongst aid workers in Bangladesh in the 1980s. Small farms were traditionally passed on from parent to surviving male child. With aid creating many more surviving children, these farms started getting sub-divided into smaller and smaller plots - quickly wasting land and becoming unsustainable to feed their dependent families. This process has simply continued unchecked, and now the majority of the population (c. 50m 1960s, maybe 200m 2020) is now fed by foreign aid. Bangladesh's rate of population increase has not in any way reduced in the past 50 years.
 
#11
Thats the mantra, but it only seems to hold true for advanced western countries - not the majority of the developing /under-developed world. In fact the hard evidence there - massive population growth post WW2 - is starkly the opposite, i.e. that, due to aid and modern medicine, people breed at the same rate or even greater, and their progeny survive in greater numbers, in turn breeding at the elevated rate.
Errr.... bollocks. Even your example of Bangladesh has seen a birthrate drop from 6.7 in 1960, to 2.1 in 2016. Unless you're suggesting that the World Bank is lying?

Fertility rate, total (births per woman) | Data

Be careful. While you may have trusted the people who told you this; and while they may have been entirely correct when talking about small farms in deprived areas (i.e. the parts of the country where the aid workers are sent); that doesn't necessarily mean that it holds true for the whole nation - just the deprived and undereducated part. It's a bit like walking into 1980s Pilton or Niddrie (local examples) and extrapolating it to descrbe the whole of the UK.

Now ask yourself which end of the political spectrum rather likes to push the "undeveloped" "non-Western" "breed at massive rates" lines? Big hint, they probably describe immigration with the word "swarms" or "hordes", and insist that the world was a better place when we had taken up the White Man's Burden and ruled those feckless locals to the betterment of the Empire...
 
#12
Errr.... bollocks. Even your example of Bangladesh has seen a birthrate drop from 6.7 in 1960, to 2.1 in 2016. Unless you're suggesting that the World Bank is lying?

Fertility rate, total (births per woman) | Data

Be careful. While you may have trusted the people who told you this; and while they may have been entirely correct when talking about small farms in deprived areas (i.e. the parts of the country where the aid workers are sent); that doesn't necessarily mean that it holds true for the whole nation - just the deprived and undereducated part. It's a bit like walking into 1980s Pilton or Niddrie (local examples) and extrapolating it to descrbe the whole of the UK.

Now ask yourself which end of the political spectrum rather likes to push the "undeveloped" "non-Western" "breed at massive rates" lines? Big hint, they probably describe immigration with the word "swarms" or "hordes", and insist that the world was a better place when we had taken up the White Man's Burden and ruled those feckless locals to the betterment of the Empire...

Bangladesh hasn't been capable of holding an accurate census since the 1970s, and all census since then have been challenged by the UN and other bodies. Ergo, the data is at best guestimate. The stated total fertility rate (TFR) demonstrably does not correlate with the stated rate of population increase, or its tendency over time. One or both statistics are suspect.

The farms argument not only applied to the whole country, but it actually also applied to most small businesses and social activities such as home ownership. This information wasn't hearsay, it was the outcome of UNDP, ILO and World Bank investigations into the cultural and population drivers in the economy. Indeed, the effects were visible in central Dhaka, let alone rural areas (Bangladesh is so densely populated that there are effectively no unique demographic distributions less for the border hill tracts).

What has this got to do with "which end of the political spectrum", etc? Have you never travelled to Daka, Lagos Mumbai, Cairo et al? Do you think population pressures are a racist construct? I never had the likes of David Attenborough down as political extremists in airing views on the issue of over-population, but there you go.
 
#13
I'd point out that the bulk of the observable population growth is people that were born in the 70s/80s/90s - back when the birthrate was higher. The World Bank figures are for births, not teenagers...

Yes, there are population pressures, and they're going to be felt for quite some time, because those high birthrates in the 1960s and 70s; but we'll see the dropoff over the next thirty or forty years.

The next problem will be "who's going to replace all of the Westerners in the workplace as our populations start to shrink?". After all, fewer taxpayers and more pensioners is going to have an impact, here first. Just ask the Japanese.

Do you think population pressures are a racist construct?
Nope. But there's an extremist narrative that insists that birthrate is unchanged by education, for certain continents (obviously, the ones where the inhabitants are... somehow visibly different...) "them undeveloped countries, education doesn't drop the birthrate, they breed like flies, swarms of them will be clamouring to invade us, hordes of immigrants looking for a free handout".

Going back to the original point: the evidence suggests that birthrate falls as education levels rise. Not just in the "developed countries", but all over the world. Access to contraception, and a reduction in the influence of the RC church might also have an effect. Having said that, some Protestant evangelical types are doing their best to reverse it... (see "Quiverfull").
 
Last edited:

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top