[bvk]

In principle, I agree with you. Charities should be valued for their practical benefits and the return they get on their donations rather than the sentimental value they provide their donors. But the article Brooks is responding to makes note of the fact that the man making these donations did significant research about what charity he should give to and found that the most cost-effective way to reduce human suffering was to save lives by donating to a charity that gives away mosquito nets. He is explicitly eschewing the feel-good nature in charity in favor of the utilitarian viewpoint that human suffering should be reduced in the most efficient possible way. The cost, taking into account all the details you mention, is $2500 per life saved.

I don't think it's obvious that $2500 invested in a business does more to reduce human suffering than $2500 in mosquito nets. After all, business, which is always an investment, is more attractive when there is less fear of an early death by malaria.

[Mikeb85]

2500 per life saved? The math doesn't add up. A mosquito net will sell on the street for around $10 (USD or CAD) in a 3rd world country (like where my wife is from - we bought a new one when we were in town - I got bit many times) - and that's with a good chunk of the profit going to the street vendor. That means 250 mosquito nets for $2500. So either mosquito nets prevent malaria for only 1 in 250 people, or a majority of that $2500 is going to waste.

And believe me, I'm not against foreign aid - but stimulating local economies, empowering farmers and local merchants, and even just travelling and spending money is more effective most of the time.

[jessriedel]

The claim is indeed that, roughly, it takes a few hundred nets to prevent one case of malaria on average. What about that is hard to believe? Nets break, are used imperfectly, and have finite lifetimes.

This issue is complicated and many person-years have been spent analyzing it. See GiveWell. Reasonable people can disagree, but not based on 10 seconds of thought.

[gohrt]

People who have actually studied the issue have run the numbers, and the math does add up:

Short version: http://www.againstmalaria.com/WhyNets.aspx

"Each net costs about $3 [prices dropped recentl], lasts for 3-4 years, and protects, on average, two people."

The statistics are well known given the scale of the problem. Every 50-250 nets we put over heads and beds, one child doesn't die.

http://www.givewell.org/international/top-charities/AMF#Cost...

http://www.givewell.org/international/technical/programs/ins...

> So either mosquito nets prevent malaria for only 1 in 250 people, or a majority of that $2500 is going to waste.

Malaria is not always fatal, malaria is not the only threat to life, and malaria is a persistent threat -- to life a life free of malaria requires about 15 nets, each with a lifespan of about 3-5 years.

[hollerith]

Also, some children with nets will still contract the disease since it is impractical to remain under the net for the entirety of every night.