[ceejayoz]

> As per my prior comment, the sort of logic you are employing is "A bad thing happened once, so we MUST stop all efforts along this tact". Such thought processes are akin to "Let's curl up into a ball and cower". If we took this tact, literally every scientific improvement we've ever had would be out the window, because literally everything we've done has killed people.

No; you're fighting a strawman.

Interventions of this nature must be carefully planned, tested, and understood. I support, for example, efforts to eradicate Aedes aegypti because the due dilligence has been done. We have a reasonable understanding of its position in the food chain, smaller-scale test efforts have been done in a variety of places, etc.

"We should eradicate everything that eats blood" is... not the same.

[b112]

That isn't reasonable. The goal does not invalidate the method, nor caution.

Without the goal (eg, get rid of those damned bloodsuckers), the amount of diligence required isn't going to even start.

You need a goal, and then, you need to assess.

The bloodsuckwrs must go.