The good news is that the US is finally acknowledging that DDT is important in combating malaria. Here's the story:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,194332,00.htmlWhat blows me away is this section:
Malaria accounts for 10 percent of Africas disease burden and causes $12 billion yearly in lost productivity.
USAID reportedly will use about 20 percent of its $99 billion budget to fund indoor spraying with DDT, according to the Times. Between 1 million and 1.5 million people will be protected, a USAID official told the Times.
Well, let's see... 20% of $99 billion is
$20 billion!Compared with the $12 billion is lost productivity, something strikes me as really off-base with this cost. Yes, I'm totally on board that preventing death and misery is worth doing, and savings in "lost productivity" aren't relevant to that mission of mercy. But these numbers raise red flags.
But wait... This cost is to protect "between 1 million and 1.5 million people." That's only a small fraction of the population of Africa.
Then I divided out the per-capita cost of this program. $20B divided by 1M to 1.5M people gives a cost range of $13,333 to $20,000
per person! Assuming an average of four people per domicile, that's $53,333 to $80,000 per domicile sprayed.
How can we possibly spend that much money spraying DDT around a little hut, a few times a year???!! I can't even begin to imagine how you can spend that much money. The Orkin man would keep my place sprayed for a year for maybe a percent or two of that cost, and that's a much bigger place, at US wage rates.
Here is yet another example of how government is totally unable to accomplish anything at all in a competent manner.