Thanks for this approachI really like it I really like it. I also might message you to follow up on your house identfication system—our org OneDay Health could use that kind of ability!
One important point here which hasn’t been mentioned, one of which is that relatively few people die of malaria in Urban areas—they have access to healthcare and are treated promptly. Here in my town of Gulu, malaria mortality from people who live in town approaches zero (I almost never hear of people die who live in town), while in rural areas without good access to healthcare in the village mortality remains high.
Any intervention reducing malaria incidence in urban areas will therefore prevent far fewer deaths than the same reduction of incidence in rural areas, perhaps an order of magnitude less—you can’t just use general mortality rates and match them with prevalence to estimate deaths in Urban areas.
Cost effectiveness of doing anything for malaria in Urban areas needs massive discounting compared with rural interventions—I’m too lazy to look into the research to see exactly how much
Interested to hear your thoughts on this and any rebuttal
Thank you for sharing your comment with us. We have considered it in our analysis, but we cannot confirm the accuracy of the morbidity and mortality ratios we have used. We may be able to provide the exact calculation next week, if time permits. It is worth noting that we have assumed that semi-urban areas may be a significant contributor to mortality. These areas differ from Gulu in two important ways—they are more rural and have more water bodies, and they are less developed, which means they may have fewer clinics.
Thanks for this approachI really like it I really like it. I also might message you to follow up on your house identfication system—our org OneDay Health could use that kind of ability!
One important point here which hasn’t been mentioned, one of which is that relatively few people die of malaria in Urban areas—they have access to healthcare and are treated promptly. Here in my town of Gulu, malaria mortality from people who live in town approaches zero (I almost never hear of people die who live in town), while in rural areas without good access to healthcare in the village mortality remains high.
Any intervention reducing malaria incidence in urban areas will therefore prevent far fewer deaths than the same reduction of incidence in rural areas, perhaps an order of magnitude less—you can’t just use general mortality rates and match them with prevalence to estimate deaths in Urban areas.
Cost effectiveness of doing anything for malaria in Urban areas needs massive discounting compared with rural interventions—I’m too lazy to look into the research to see exactly how much
Interested to hear your thoughts on this and any rebuttal
Thank you for sharing your comment with us. We have considered it in our analysis, but we cannot confirm the accuracy of the morbidity and mortality ratios we have used. We may be able to provide the exact calculation next week, if time permits. It is worth noting that we have assumed that semi-urban areas may be a significant contributor to mortality. These areas differ from Gulu in two important ways—they are more rural and have more water bodies, and they are less developed, which means they may have fewer clinics.
Nice one.
I’m not even sure how much really clear data there is on rural towns vs. rural areas not in town. It’s a tricky one for sure.
Nick.