Do mosquito bed nets like the ones given out by organizations like against malaria foundation help people sleep better or make them more comfortable? Or is the only benefit that they help save lives by making people less likely to get malaria?>The long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) provided by the Against Malaria Foundation are high-tech protective shields made from durable polyethylene or polyester fibers specifically engineered to survive harsh tropical environments for three to four years. These nets are far more than a physical barrier; the fabric is either impregnated or coated with WHO-prequalified insecticides, such as pyrethroids, which kill or repel malaria-carrying *Anopheles* mosquitoes on contact. This insecticide is designed to be wash-resistant, remaining effective for up to twenty manual washes, while the specific mesh size is precisely calibrated to balance cooling airflow with impenetrable protection against even the smallest insects. >Because these nets are family-sized, each one typically protects two individuals often a mother and child and by killing mosquitoes throughout the night, they create a "community effect" that reduces the overall mosquito density in the area, providing an extra layer of safety for the entire village even during the day.
>>2855189they just end up using them as fishing nets & poisoning the water, or re-selling them as swatches of cloth for expensive clothing, so it really doesn't apply to them on account of them not using itif you want to know if it would make (you) more comfortable, then yes, as it blocks the mosquitos almost entirely
>>2855196Do you have evidence of that? Because they have studies showing they are generally not misused. https://www.givewell.org/charities/amf(See Section: "Are there any negative or offsetting impacts?")>Over 95% of households still have their nets and are using them months or years later.>In some regions, like Malawi, only 1.2% to 3% of nets were found to be used for something other than sleeping.https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1001019>The Finding: They found "very little evidence" to support the idea that misuse is widespread.>The "Old Net" Explanation: Most photos you see of "mosquito net fishing" are actually people repurposing old, expired nets that have already protected a family for 3 years and are no longer effective against malaria. Repurposing an old net isn't a failure it's recycling.
>>2855225the many videos of african doctors saying "they poisoned the river with their fishing, then come to us complaining about malaria, stop sending the nets"but you'd rather rather say that we don't actually do that, and that we don't have -really- idiots here, right?its not like uneducated subsistence farmers are, you know, uneducated? no, can't be that, i don't have enough sources or studies, or some other kind of thing for you to say isn't enough, is outdated, or is biased, right?oh, but fuck those shithole countries like brazil or russia though, they're filled with uneducated idiots who misuse resources!fuck off, white "savior"you have saved nothing here
>>2855231>Rigorous surveys (including those monitored by AMF and analyzed by GiveWell) show that in most distribution areas, over 80-95% of nets are still present and used for sleeping months/years later. Misuse rates are typically low overall (e.g., 1-3% in some studies), and much of the "misuse" in photos/videos is actually repurposing of old, worn-out nets that are no longer effective against malaria anyway (after 3+ years of use).>GiveWell has investigated this extensively and concludes that any negative/offsetting impacts from misuse are negligible compared to the lives saved far outweighing the harms.https://www.givewell.org/international/technical/programs/insecticide-treated-nets/fishing-with-insecticide-treated-nets?referrer=grok.com>Insecticide-treated nets (ITNs) distributed for malaria prevention are sometimes used for fishing instead. While this could cause harm through reduced protection against malaria and because fishing with ITNs may damage the environment and reduce fish stocks, we think the impact on cost-effectiveness of the campaigns overall is negligible (our best guess is a bit less than half a percent).>Across the locations where we fund ITN campaigns, we think that ~0.1% to 0.5% of people use distributed ITNs for fishing at some point–potentially after use for malaria protection. >However, we think these effects are not evenly distributed, and that there are some rare “hot spot” areas, accounting for a very small portion of total distributions (less than 1-in-200), where ITN fishing is locally widespread (i.e. nearly all households in the area engage in the practice). In these areas, we think harms from ITN fishing may reduce cost-effectiveness substantially (by ~60%), though even with this reduction ITN campaigns are highly cost-effective
>>2855231>As discussed above, chemicals can leach into water from ITNs. We believe there are two ways pyrethroids or other chemicals could be consumed by humans after ITNs are used for fishing: they could accumulate in fish tissues and then be eaten by humans, or they could concentrate in water and be drunk.>Our best guess is that total human consumption of pyrethroids from nets used for fishing is relatively low, around 0.0025mg/kg of body weight per day on average in populations whose entire fish consumption comes from ITN-caught fish, and entire water consumption comes from water sources in which ITNs are used. This is based on data from a review of a couple dozen studies of pyrethroid accumulation in fish and water in various settings across the world. None of these studies occurred in areas where ITNs are known to be used for fishing (the pyrethroid contamination comes from other sources, like agricultural runoff), so our extrapolation is relatively uncertain.>This is 5-25% of the WHO’s acceptable daily intake for these substances, and while we haven’t reviewed the methodology to generate this guideline, we believe WHO is generally a reputable source. Based on this, our best guess is that this level of pyrethroid consumption is not particularly harmful, even in areas where ITN fishing is common, so we don’t currently plan to make an adjustment for increased pyrethroid consumption due to ITN fishing
>>2855232>Grok.Wow, you sure showed him. Now take your A.I. slop the fuck out of here.
>>2855235The studies linked are made by humans. Not ai
"Saving" African "lives" is the most absurd waste of time and resources ever conceived by humanity
>>2855236>You should accept these cherry picked A.I. slop answers or you're problematic.No Xir, I won't.
>>2855237Why? More humans=less wild animal suffering Wild animal suffering is the worst thing in the world https://benthams.substack.com/p/long-run-human-impact-on-wild-animal?referrer=grok.com>Why you personally will plausibly prevent 5 quadrillion insects from coming into existence and the late Ordovician mass extinction was basedhttps://reducing-suffering.org/humanitys-net-impact-on-wild-animal-suffering/>If you want to do some other practical things that likely reduce insect suffering, you can:>Convert a grass lawn to gravel.>Avoid eating insects.>Avoid homicide. (This includes not killing yourself!)>Avoid worm-bin composting.https://benthams.substack.com/p/insect-suffering-is-the-biggest-issue?referrer=grok.com
>>2855239you're just spamming a.i. posts at this point
>>2855240>>2855239Nothing in this post is ai
>>2855232>b-b-b-but my studies!
