|
The Scientist: NewsBlog:
We can eradicate malaria: report
Posted by Bob Grant [Entry posted at 12th March 2008 02:24 PM GMT]
Rate this article
Return to Top comment: More on that. by Travis Mazer [Comment posted 2008-03-14 16:40:54] I did not wish to imply that the work you had done was incorrect or unintelligent, and that I had my own duration of intervention, but was simply stating a method. That method was used in the U.S. and Europe, and though I do not know how long it took, I do know that it eradicated malaria in those locations. It just saddens me that if it were not for the unfortunate timing of the environmental movement, millions of African lives would not have been lost. I apologize for any insult. Return to Top comment: What about when the intervention stops? by Gabriela Gomes ??[Not You? [Comment posted 2008-03-13 11:59:31] The model referred above quatifies the intervention effort necessary for eradication. This target is region-specific and can be estimated for a variety of interventions, such as mass treatment, indoor residual spraying of DTT, and others. Its main implication is manifested only after the intervention stops. If the effort was below a (quantifiable) threshold, the trend reverts and the incidence returns to the original endemic state. It the effort was above threshold, the decreasing trend continues towards eradication even after the intervention stops. I wonder how you have decided the duration for your intervention.
Return to Top comment: easy solution by Travis Mazer [Comment posted 2008-03-12 21:03:26] Indoor Residual Spraying of DDT.
Uganda is doing it and managed to cut malaria rates by 80%. And, with IRS, the doses on the walls and eaves of homes will be so small that there will be no risk of cancer or environment spill over. Take that, Rachel Carson. Comment on this blog |