Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
topspeaker70

Malaria/SSA

Recommended Posts

If you haven't read this month's cover story in National Geographic, you certainly should. Whether you're a cold-blooded policy type, or a bleeding-heart narrative type, this article is loaded. Even the pictures and maps can be important.

 

http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0707/feature1/

 

 

Buried in article, on p. 44, is this nifty blurb:

 

Sub-Saharan Africa suffers 90 percent of all

malaria deaths.

 

How's that for topic-specific?

 

And don't overlook p. 148 for important follow up.

 

EDIT: I see, in retrospect, that this post should have been combined with at least one other, maybe more. I apologize and ask the moderator to do whatever is necessary to get this thing sorted out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The magazine also includes a very effective solvency possibility. I think it was insecticide nets or something like that, they are low tech but the problem is that hardly anyone in Africa can afford them since the African company charges a fee that is too expensive so a possible aff could be distribute these nets for free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue that jumped out at me was the assertion that, under the best of conditions, malaria can only be managed - and not eradicated - because of its parasitic (nonviral, nonbacteriological) nature. As one medical expert says in the article, "The disease is smarter than we are." And it appears to be the consensus of the medical community that only a vaccine is the real answer.

 

Anyhow, the article is great reading; and, IMHO, it should be read in context, not just skimmed and cut.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If someone writes a case using prophylactic treatments for malaria prevention, DDT would be a decent case advantage.

 

But, if someone writes a really good standing water abatement/treatment affirmative, it could have really sweet malaria, sleeping sickness, DDT, drinking water, and dozens of other great advantages. That's where the money's at, so to speak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dan's points all have great merit. From my point of view, this article is not inherently "affirmative" or "negative." The evidence is the evidence, and the debaters have to use their good judgment about how they use it - if at all.

 

But here's another quote from this article to ponder. Anytime I read something - in the disjunctive - about "a domino effect," all my old debater juices start flowing again.

 

National Geographic July/2007 p. 58

 

"This is a critical moment," says Kent Campbell, program

director of the Malaria Control and Evaluation Partnership

in Africa. "There are no national models of success with

malaria control in Africa. None. All we've seen is pessimism

and failure. If Zambia is a success, it will have a domino

effect. If it's a failure, donors will be discouraged and

move on, and the problem will continue to get worse."

 

Enjoy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the evidence isn't reverse causal, the claim that "If it's a failure, donors will be discouraged" is not a warrant for why if its a success, then Zambia will be modeled. I think even in the 70s warrantless evidence was considered bad..

 

 

You've got me, here, Syn. For the life of me, I don't have the slightest idea what you're saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's saying there's no warrant in the selection you posted. That particular snippet doesn't contain any reason why success in Zambia would be the precursor to other beneficent happenings, it just posits it. The closest thing to a warrant in the snippet is that if Zambia fails, it will get worse. That means the snippet isn't supporting an argument for Zambian success snowballing, because it's warrant is just that Zambian failure snowballs.

 

I should note that I've not read the article, so I don't know what is said before or after it, or even what it is about, so I don't know what a card that contained the snippet would say. I'm wary of any text that uses ideas like the domino effect, because slippery slope is a pretty insidious fallacy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i dont think the card is particularly great... but speaking as a scientist... i believe the card means to suggest that zimbabwe is a litmus test of sorts - success will motivate others to engage and assist SSA while failure will do the opposite.

 

i dont think there is much in the way of warrants, but at some point, when you keep drilling down into a card, you *do* stop looking for warrants...

 

even if the card isnt warranted, i dont see any reason why the card is fundamentally flawed, slipery slope fallacy or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. At the outset, PLEASE see my post #3, supra, in which I say that this is an article which should be read in its entirety, not just skimmed and/or cut. IMHO, this mini-flap over the "Zambia domino effect" quotation certainly demonstrates why.

 

2. I infer that the word "snippet" has replaced the word "blurb" as a debate term of art. Fair enough. In the practice law (where, believe it or not, understanding the concept of "evidence" is just as important as it is in debate), the terms are "bald assertion" and/or "undocumented conclusion."

 

3. As for Mr. (Dr.?) Campbell's statement, although I hesitate to speak for him, I infer that his reasoning is as follows:

 

(a) Zambia has essentially mobilized its entire government and society against Malaria (see, pp. 54 and 58), involving everyone from the army to the boy scouts;

 

(B) "Zambia's plan is to educate the public, then beat the disease through a three-pronged assault: drugs [artemisinin-based combination therapy - "ACT,"], sprays, and mosquito nets." (See, p. 54.) * Funding for anti-Malaria efforts has grown from $30 thousand in 1985 to more than $40 million today. (See, p. 54.)

 

© Zambia's program (as Mr./Dr. Campbell indicates) is the first truly NATIONAL attack by a GOVERNMENT in SSA on Malaria. (SSA was apparently left out of the first great worldwide war on Malaria in the 1950s-60s, see, p. 50, left-hand column). Therefore, it is being viewed as a highly-important experiment and precedent.

 

If Zambia's program works, governments across the region (and perhaps the rest of the "malarious planet") will emulate it. If it fails, Mr./Dr. Campbell fears that Zambia will become fodder for aid critics/skeptics/cynics (Prof. Easterly and/or Mr. Calderisi, perhaps?); and, given what is widely-known in the "Aid Community" to be a zero-sum scramble for funds and resources between/among groups focused upon specific diseases [HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, Avian Flu, etc.], Malaria control will get sent back to the back-burner. This, in Mr./Dr. Campbell's view (note his title), would be bad.

 

Given the history of Malaria ["Some scientists believe that one out of every two people who have ever lived have died of malaria." p. 46. (emphasis added)], I can't say that I think that this conclusion is unreasonable.

 

=======================================================

Now come on, folks (especially my old friends, the anonymous red-reppers), be fair: all I've tried to do in this thread is bring up a very-current and interesting article, and to suggest that it contains the foundation for some thought-provoking arguments. I wasn't advocating a particular case, or DA, or K, or anything of the sort; in fact, all I did advocate was: (a) Malaria is paticularly pertinent to SSA, and (B) that the article be read in context. I did not state or imply that the quotes I cited were arguments in and of themselves. That ain't my style, and it never was - either as a lawyer or a debater.

=======================================================

 

 

* With all due deference to the good people fighting Malaria in Zambia, I think this plan omits one very important component - regulation of water supplies and elimination of stagnant water. As a person who grew up in a swampy area (or, to be PC, a "wetland") - Houston, Texas - and who still has memories of trucks patrolling the steets and spraying DDT every night around sunset, I know that minimizing stagnant water collection is essential to mosquito control. Hell, without that, you might have to play baseball and football in a domed stadium or something. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Check this out on Malaria control, clean water, infrastructure, AIDS and other issues. Normally, I wouldn't raise an eyebrow about a daily press release, but more than half a billion dollars in aid going to a single country in SSA is news.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/africa/06/27/bush.mozambique.reut/index.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If someone writes a case using prophylactic treatments for malaria prevention, DDT would be a decent case advantage.

 

But, if someone writes a really good standing water abatement/treatment affirmative, it could have really sweet malaria, sleeping sickness, DDT, drinking water, and dozens of other great advantages. That's where the money's at, so to speak.

 

Me and my partner came up with a pretty good DDT aff. It has an african econ advantage and soft power advantage.

 

Just a thought

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...