|
|
|
|
|
by foxyv
612 days ago
|
|
So, once you understand the cultural context, you know to give the people both mosquito netting and fishing nets. This would be easier if you could afford outreach and food assistance. This just shows that food assistance is a key part of medical assistance. > people who have lived with malaria for generations don't see it as being as big of a problem I don't accept the idea that these people want to live with malaria because it is normal. People don't like being bitten by insects. They just like starving to death much less. Appropriate funding can honestly solve this problem. |
|
Another example of this problem was the distribution of high efficiency stoves as a form of carbon credits. People just used both their low efficiency stove and the higher efficiency stove to increase yield.[0] If you give someone who needs more nets a fishing net and a mosquito net, guess what they're going to do. This is a fundamental methodological issue, not a simple problem of "Okay, but now we understand."
>I don't accept the idea that these people want to live with malaria because it is normal.
Of course not, but people are also capable of making their own decisions about what is affecting their lives most immediately. We just saw a massive number of educated populations in the US refuse vaccination efforts during a global pandemic because of a risk tradeoff, despite that decision statistically making no sense for the overwhelming majority of them. You think someone impoverished and facing food scarcity is going to prioritize a government or NGO effort to solve a problem that is inherently a low statistical background noise to their life experience? Why would they?
[0] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-023-01259-6