The World Health Organization reported steep declines in malaria cases and deaths compared with 2000 in a report released early Tuesday, saying the progress was particularly notable in Africa, where the disease is most prevalent. But the W.H.O. coupled the news on malaria with a warning that it could worsen again in Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone, the countries worst hit by the Ebola virus, which has overwhelmed their public health systems. In its World Malaria Report 2014, the W.H.O. said the malaria mortality rate fell by 47 percent worldwide and by 54 percent in the Africa region between 2000 and 2013. It attributed the improvement largely to advances in diagnostic tests as well as increases in the use of insecticide-treated bed nets and effective drug therapies. Malaria was responsible for about 584,000 deaths worldwide last year. While the scope of Ebola pales in comparison, it is far deadlier. In the W.H.O.’s latest Ebola update, on Monday, it reported 17,800 cases, including 6,331 deaths, since the outbreak began early this year.Still 100 times more deadly than Ebola fever, even with the improvements. It is noteworthy, also, that the new, lowered death count is higher than the lower bound of the generally accepted estimates of 500,000-1,000,000.
Most of the dead are babies and infants in areas without doctors, clinics or modern medicine.
Still 100 times more deadly than Ebola fever, even with the improvements.
ReplyDeleteNo, it isn't.
In the areas affected by Ebola, there are more Ebola fatalities than malaria and cholera combined, despite there being far fewer people infected with Ebola.
Thought experiment: you are confined to West Africa. You are given a choice between contracting Ebola and malaria. Which do you choose?
I used to make up questions like that but then I grew up.
ReplyDeleteIn the areas with the current Ebola outbreak, the native population is almost entirely immune (due to genetic inheritance) to the local form of malaria (vivax). And thanks to treatment regimes (primarily hydration) developed in that area from experience in a devastating cholera epidemic of the 1970s, cholera mortality has become low everywhere where there are IV bags.
I have suggested that you study up on malaria -- more than doing a Web search -- and even proposed some books that would be helpful. But Dunning-Kruger prevails.
I used to make up questions like that but then I grew up.
ReplyDeleteI asked the question to demonstrate that you don't know what the word "deadly" means.
Ebola is *at least* a couple orders of magnitude more deadly than malaria has ever been, anywhere.
Let me quote directly from the post: While the scope of Ebola pales in comparison, it is far deadlier.
You shouldn't be quite so snotty when you are shooting yourself in the foot.
In the areas with the current Ebola outbreak, the native population is almost entirely immune ...
Please revisit your post and note tense, a subject I suggest you study up on, since you seem to have so much trouble with it.
But it really doesn't matter, this Ebola outbreak is more deadly than malaria has ever been, and vastly more difficult to successfully treat.