Habs Geographical - Year 9 Edition

HabsGeographical Global Issues: Malaria and Climate Change Year 9 edition 2021

Pixabay

Habs Geographical 2021 This magazine is a compilation of work from Year 9 students. The students study a range of contemporary issues in the Year 9 Geography curriculum. The items on the following pages are related to the units on malaria and climate change.

Their work is a series of essays and reflections on the issues, where the students were encouraged to express opinions and reach conclusions on a range of questions, some of which they devised themselves.

Thanks go to the Year 9 students for their contributions and to the Sixth Form Committee for their support in editing and producing the magazine: Joel, Rayyaan, Callum, Kiran and Faiz.

Mrs Edwards

Cover image - https://pixabay.com/illustrations/earth-globe-water-wave-sea-lake-216834/

Contents

Climate Change

Health: Malaria

4. How useful would it be if all countries used the same mitigation and adaptation strategies?

Amey 9H1

14. Are we forgetting about malaria?

Vince 9S1 16. Malaria: A disease out of control?

Kian 9C2

6. Should all countries take both mitigation and adaptation steps to deal with climate change?

18. What are the main steps in the fight against malaria?

Alban 9R2

Julian 9J2

8. The impacts of climate change can only be solved by international cooperation.

To what extent do you agree?

Rajarshi 9J2

20. Can malaria be completely eradicated from the whole world?

Jai 9C2 22. Malaria: a cause or result of poverty?

Lucas 9J1

11. How useful would it be if all countries used the same adaptation and mitigation strategies?

Devarshi 9J2

24. Malaria: a disease out of control?

Kailaash 9S2

12. Should all countries take both mitigation and adaptation steps to deal with climate change?

26. ‘Malaria is the epidemic of the poor.’

Lewis 9C2 Dawei 9C2

28. Malaria Malevolence: truly uncontrollable or not?

Ibrahim 9R2l

3

Ph

oto

by

Ga

tis

Vi

lak

so

nU

ns

pla

sh

How useful would it be if all countries used the same mitigation and adaptation strategies?

Amey 9H1

E

very country agreeing to implement the same mitigation strategies or adapting to climate change the same way would be a very ineffective way of dealing with it.

For example, it would to be redundant to have every country build a two-metre-high sea wall to adapt to rising sea levels – some places might not be affected by flooding and would not need the sea wall, but other places might

4

be at risk of flooding and need a higher sea wall, so it would be an ineffective strategy. It would also take varying amounts of resources for different countries.

For example, it would take more money for a large country like

Greenhouse gas emissions

USA to build a sea wall than for a smaller country like Belgium to do the same. If every country had to abide by a restriction on the total quantity of greenhouse gases they emit, it would be unfair for it to be the same for everyone – bigger countries would have to emit lower per capita than smaller countries, which could have more emissions per capita while still being below the threshold, so it would be unfair.

If countries were allocated money to help with measures against climate change, it would be ineffective for richer countries with larger economies to receive the same as poorer countries with smaller economies, because the rich countries could use the resources, they already have to implement the measures. On the contrary, poorer countries have less flexibility regarding resources and might need additional help to be able to implement those

same measures. Possibly a better and fairer way of allocating funds to countries would be allocating them per capita – every country would receive an amount of money proportionate to their size, but this would still be unfair, because countries are impacted differently by climate change. The emitters, countries like China or USA, are not as affected by climate change as countries that don’t emit much: islands like Kiribati, where they are having to evacuate, or a country like Bangladesh, where they have to adapt their lifestyle as a consequence of the actions of other countries.

Some countries have to take more responsibility towards the mitigation of climate 5

change than others because they are not all equal contributors towards it.

Everybody still needs to work together, but they do not need to all take the same mitigation actions. Adaptation does not require as much teamwork as mitigation, because countries can individually assess what would help them the most, since every country is impacted in a different way, and their lifestyles are also different.

To conclude, every country needs to respond to climate change individually, but they also need to work as a team to have an effective response strategy. It would be ineffective for everyone to take the same action against climate change.

Ph oto by fro Mar m k Pe us S xe pis ls ke

Should all countries take both mitigation and adaptation steps to deal with climate change?

Alban 9R2

I

think all countries should take steps in both mitigation and adaptation to deal with climate change because every country needs to contribute to the global effort. The big

superpowers, such as the United States, should mitigate and help less economically developed countries who possess a smaller range of resources adapt, so they can carry on with their lives.

6

This would help prevent their land being flooded by rising sea levels. Alternatively, they could be provided with sufficient water in areas where climate change poses a threat and could

become even worse. I do not think smaller countries need to worry about mitigating, because they aren’t the main drivers of climate change, since their volume of carbon emissions are not comparable to more economically developed countries who possess more cars and factories, emitting significant amounts of carbon dioxide.

However, countries like China and the USA need to mitigate as they are the main producers, and

even though they have massive populations, they are

producing more carbon dioxide than needed.

These countries with greater resources should find it easier to mitigate since they have the funds to make the whole country drive electric cars or ban activities that are unnecessarily producing carbon dioxide. Also, all countries do not need to adapt because

some won’t be affected.

Overall, I believe that not all countries need to both mitigate and adapt but that it is dependent on if they are big emitter or if they are a country that is going to affected by climate change e.g. an island close to sea level or area that could be vulnerable to drought. The countries that may have to do both are the largest emitters and should also help the smaller countries adapt since they have the resources to do so.

Photo by Jacek Dylag on Unsplash

7

https://pixabay.com/illustrations/ earth-appointment-meeting-1996138/

The impacts of climate change can only be solved by international cooperation.

To what extent do you agree?

Rajarshi 9J2

C

limate change has been described to be an “international responsibility” because climate change affects the atmosphere, which is not owned by one country, but shared over the entire world making it an “international

resource”, a necessity for life.

If a nation continues to pollute, it will not only inflict harm upon themselves but damage the entire world. Therefore, it is only logical to argue that the international community must collectively address climate change and attempt to mitigate

8

this worldwide crisis. However, to limit oneself to “only” focusing on international approval and agreement may prove to be dangerous and ineffective due to the nature of international relations.

Firstly, international agreements,

such as the Paris Agreement, provide accountability and transparency to the public and track progress towards targets. For example, Russia, one of the greatest polluters, has made very little progress in limiting their emissions, and are holding warming above 4OC, critically insufficient compared to the goal of 1.5OC. Therefore, the public is aware of who is not doing their fair share and pressure can be put on nations who are not abiding by international agreements.

However, this has done little to deter less democratic countries, such as Russia, for they tend to be more powerful, not only militaristically, but politically.

The U.S., China, and Russia are part of the “Big 5” countries in the United Nations and are stronger in terms of diplomacy, as they are often crucial for the world’s economic and financial systems or are a major hub for some industry, such as manufacturing. Thus, one may argue that international agreements, simply place restrictions and constraints on less economically developed countries and are empty promises from more economically developed countries.

On the other hand, international agreements provide a voice for those less developed countries, especially as collectives, so many nations in similar circumstances can push their concerns. For example, Tuvalu, an average of a mere two metres above sea level, would be greatly affected by climate change and rising sea levels.

Tuvalu, themselves are a very progressive country in terms of renewable energy with all their electricity sourced from

renewable sources, therefore, Tuvalu formed the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), along with other Pacific islands, such as Vanuatu, and has been able to voice their concerns in international agreements.

Therefore, international agreements allow smaller, developing countries to act.

However, these institutions and organisations become less significant and hold less meaning when countries become uncooperative and can easily withdraw from an agreement. For example,

the United States, under the Trump administration, withdrew from the Paris Agreement.

This means other countries will be less inclined to do their fair share and exacerbates the withdrawal of other countries, thereby making international agreements very insecure and unreliable. On the other hand, international law makers and diplomats could put in place a policy that compensation would be owed to other countries, should one withdraw.

Therefore, the fault does not lie within the international agreements themselves, but in their execution and policies.

However, there is little incentive or reward for countries which reach their established target.

Countries that reach their goal tend to be developing and less industrialised and hence will burn fewer fossil fuels. For example, Tuvalu has constantly and reliably met their target for the Paris Agreement, however, has not been rewarded or at the

9

very least, developed countries have not been doing their fair share, which will ultimately impact Tuvalu. Moreover, it is commonly argued by developed countries that it is a worldwide responsibility to mitigate climate change, thus there are no rewards for meeting goals, as it is our moral obligation, however it is not just a moral obligation for developing countries, but a threat to life. Furthermore, many developed countries are not following this “moral obligation”, and “moral obligations” do not make a country stay in an agreement.

Therefore, international agreements are fundamentally flawed in the fact that they do not incentivise countries to do their fair share and act.

In addition, international agreements remove the human side from the mitigation of climate change, as they ignore regional and local efforts to reduce climate change.

For example, a nationwide campaign to reduce climate change and become greener may work in comparatively “small” countries, e.g. the UK or Tuvalu but will not work in larger countries such as the US or China which encompass people from a variety of backgrounds. Thus, one may argue more funds and focus needs to be placed on local and regional commitments within a country. For example, in Japan, Kamikatsu Village is a “no-waste” village. Household waste is separated into 45 categories, and almost all waste is recycled or taken to a collection centre and reused by the village inhabitants.

This would be much more difficult in a larger city such as Tokyo or Kyoto, as authorities

Photo by Cassie Matias on Unsplash

would struggle to enforce it.

Therefore, instead of looking at faceless nations, more focus needs to be placed upon people to effectively mitigate impacts of climate change. On the other hand, one may argue that international agreements ultimately raise awareness and result in local and regional efforts, especially since world news and international information travels much faster in our modern world. Therefore, these local impacts may be attributed to international agreements, as they allow these local and regional efforts to be

theorised and gain traction, which may have struggled beforehand.

agreements are especially important with respect to international relations.

Moreover, international agreements help regulate international or shared responsibilities, as well as mediate between rival countries.

For example, the Antarctic Treaty regulates the activities performed within Antarctica, such as no nuclear nor reactive waste may be disposed of within Antarctica, as well as the prohibition of oil-drilling.

Otherwise, regions such as Antarctica would be under great threat. Therefore, international

In conclusion, international agreements and cooperation are important in the mitigation of climate change but they are certainly not the only method of reducing climate change and environmental destruction, and it is dangerous to only focus on politics and international relations between faceless nations, and far more important to focus on a local scale.

10

https://pixabay.com/photos/windr%C3%A4der-wind-park-lake-energy-408596/

Should all countries take both mitigation and adaptation steps to deal with climate change?

Dawei 9C2

I

deally, all countries should be able to both mitigate and adapt to climate change.

This would be the most efficient way of solving the problem, as we could prevent the future implications of climate change, while adapting to overcome the current consequences.

However, this is not entirely possible, as many countries are hindered by limiting factors such as time and lack of money.

For example, a poor LEDC that desperately needs water would not have the money or workforce required to build massive reservoirs to store water. Therefore, I believe that a more realistic and fair solution would be for every country to focus on mitigating climate change, but with the prerequisite that all countries that have higher greenhouse

gas emissions should focus more on mitigation, whilst developing countries should firstly focus on shifting their economies towards greener practices.

The countries with the highest greenhouse gas emissions, such as China or the US, should primarily focus on mitigating climate change. They could do this by adopting renewable energy sources; replanting trees; halting deforestation; and conserving energy. I believe that these countries should focus on mitigation because they are the largest contributors to climate change, and so have the ‘most room for improvement.’ If they cut down greenhouse gas emissions by just 10%, the massive decrease in emissions would be proportionally larger than any low emission

11

country. Meanwhile, those low emission countries could focus on adapting their own economies to combat climate change. However, this would be very costly, especially for poor LEDCs. Therefore, the wealthier MEDCs would ideally donate money to help the LEDCs adapt. This would cause some issues though, since these MEDCs also require money to spend on their own mitigation methods, whist adapting at the same time.

Overall, I believe that this is a complex problem with no absolute solution, however, I strongly believe that the highest contributors to climate change should be doing far more to mitigate it than the low emission countries that don’t contribute much.

https://pixabay.com/photos/solar-panel-roof-straw-hut-solar-241903/

How useful would it be if all countries used the same adaptation and mitigation strategies?

Devarshi 9J2

I

t may not be significantly useful for all countries to employ the same mitigation and adaptation techniques for several reasons, however on the other hand there are also a

variety of reasons this could have a significant impact.

One example of utilising the same adaptation techniques not being useful is the construction

12

of reservoirs. The consequences of climate change are varied.

With more unpredictable weather patterns, some areas are at higher risk of drought. This is can be combated by building a dam

to prevent freshwater from rivers from flowing out to sea. This adaptation technique however only works for countries that have a river flowing through them.

Countries such as Saudi Arabia, or the Maldives, which lack rivers won’t get any benefit from this method.

Moreover, an example of utilising the same mitigation technique not being useful is searching for cleaner energy. HICs, that have been utilising fossil fuels for a long time, have the necessary resources and money to transition to clean energy sources, employing structures such as solar panels. However LICs, or

developing countries, don’t have the necessary funds to move from cheap fossil fuels, to expensive, but more sustainable, cleaner energy sources.

On the other hand, an example of utilising the same adaptation technique being useful is the construction of rip-rap. For countries that aren’t landlocked, and suffer from higher coastal flooding risks, and submersion, due to rising sea levels, an affordable way of protecting their coasts is to use rip-rap.

These are loose rocks around coasts, to prevent erosion and reduce submersion, and unlike other methods, aren’t an eyesore. Therefore, this is useful if all countries do it, as it is accessible, and would reduce coastal submersion.

Photo by Scott Rodgerson on Unsplash

13

https://pixabay.com/photos/mosquito -malaria-plaque-disease-1016254/

Are we forgetting about malaria?

Vince 9S1

M

alaria is a global issue and while there have been many preventative measures taken and a vaccine is slowly being developed, malaria has never been eradicated.

However, it has been contained in different countries and the spread has decreased. Malaria had its peak in 2004 with 930,000 deaths worldwide but with the help of the World Health Organisation

and the Millennium Development Goals, malaria is more controlled.

It seems that malaria is being forgotten due to other worldwide problems occurring such as Covid-19 which currently holds all the attention of the media and governments. However, in the 20th century, malaria was the top story in the news because this deadly disease was in almost

14

every country. By 1946, malaria was slowing to a stop in East and West Russia. Countries nearer the North and South Poles tended to not have as many cases due to the colder temperature, meaning the mosquitoes could not breed.

Since then, malaria is rarely talked about in the British media, and people seem to be unaware that its presence remains. In the past century, despite human

activities reducing half the land area that supports malaria growth, population demographic changes resulted in a two billion increase in the total population exposed to malaria risk. Annually, malaria is estimated to cost Africa £9.5 billion in Gross Domestic Product. This huge cost every year has slowed the economic growth in Africa by 1.3%. In 2010, Africa had 147,481 cases and 141,677 in 2017 showing a lack of change over the seven years.

Recently, in 2018, there were 228 million cases of malaria worldwide and 405,000 deaths.

67% of those people were under the age of five and over centuries malaria has been one of the biggest worldwide killers. Due to malaria’s complexity, finding a vaccine is a very difficult task, much like Covid-19.

Although the UK is not greatly affected by malaria, there are many countries in the world, for example in sub-Saharan Africa, that still do not have as good healthcare infrastructure as the United Kingdom and other HICs (high income countries) do, so what may be considered a low threat to one country, is a serious threat to others.

Therefore, we need to keep the threat of malaria in mind, remember that others are still battling the disease and do what we can to help.

15

Malaria: A disease out of control?

Kian 9C2

I

t’s official. Malaria has now been named the second most impactful disease after tuberculosis, affecting millions, or even billions, of innocent people. This deadly disease kills around one million people every year and there are few signs of major improvement

in the most impacted regions.

These include central and west Africa as well as south-east Asia. However, there has been a significant decline in cases in other regions, primarily due to anti-malarial therapies and medications.

16

Malaria has ravaged countries across central Africa, with cases in Nigeria (25%), the Democratic Republic of Congo (11%), Mozambique (5%) and Uganda (4%), accounting for nearly half of all malaria cases worldwide in 2011. This just goes to show how hard-hit

Africa was by malaria, which was compounded by the severe lack of doctors. (with only four doctors to 10,000 people in Nigeria).

Malaria has heavily impacted the WHO African region, resulting in many socioeconomic and environmental consequences.

This region carries a disproportionately high share of the global malaria burden, home to around 93% of malaria cases, as well as 94% of malaria deaths. Secondly, the total funding for malaria control has estimated to be around 2.7 billion US$ in 2018, with only a mere 30% of the total amount covered by international aid.

Finally, malaria has caused a massive disruption in the ecosystem. This is because one of the main prevention methods is spraying the insecticide DDT. This process is not eco-friendly at all because these chemicals bioaccumulate in the digestive systems of animals and is then biomagnified up through the food chain.

This shows that not only has malaria been eradicated in most continents, but also, the situation of malaria is improving in the most impacted regions. This clearly portrays how malaria is becoming more under-control in Africa, by using preventative measures to limit its effect.

amodiaquine plus sulfadoxinepyrimethamine to all children under five years of age, during the high transmission season.

This treatment method, funded by non-governmental organizations (NGOs), has been the main catalyst for the significant decrease in the total number of malaria cases in Africa. Therefore, it appears Finally, many anti-malarial that with the benefits of foreign therapies have been developed, aid, malaria can be controlled. resulting in a decline in malaria cases worldwide.

In conclusion, I believe that malaria is not completely out of control, mainly because it has been resolved in most countries around the world.

Although there are some exceptions where cases have remained extremely high, this implies that malaria has successfully been confined to a few regions around the world. There is no question that these regions must be provided with foreign aid to reduce the amount of deaths. Each death This strategy involves the is significant, and we cannot administration of monthly afford any more loss of life to courses of the medication this terrible disease.

Since 2012, WHO has recommended seasonal malaria chemoprevention as an additional prevention strategy for countries in sub-Saharan Africa

On the contrary, malaria may not actually be completely out of control. When considering the bigger picture, the disease is mainly concentrated on one continent, limiting its overall impact. Malaria is only confined to some regions of Africa and south-east Asia, and Europe, North America and Australia are almost completely malariafree. This therefore implies that malaria should not be described as completely out of control.

Subsequent research in 2018 suggests that around 50% of all people at risk of contracting malaria in Africa were protected by an insecticide-treated net, compared to 29% in 2010.

17

What are the main steps in the fight against malaria?

Julian 9J2

I

n this article I would like to discuss the prevention the world is taking against malaria. Before analysing the preventative steps being taken at the moment and how the current Covid-19 situation has affected these, it is important to underline the problem of the disease itself, the areas affected and the severity of this disease.

Malaria is a disease caused by a parasite which affects humans

and many other animals like bats or lizards. It causes widespread poverty and economic issues. To be infected by this disease, you must be bitten by an infected female anopheles mosquito which carries the plasmodium parasite. Once infected, the parasite then has free access to the bloodstream.

When another mosquito feeds on an infected animal or human, they have a high chance of becoming a malaria-carrying mosquito.

18

Malaria carrying mosquitos only exist in tropical climates or climates where the average temperature throughout the year resides at above 19 degrees Celsius. Whilst most of the cases occur in SubSaharan Africa, areas of the Americas, the West Pacific, South-East Asia and the Eastern Mediterranean also are affected.

The continuous spread of malaria is a very serious

problem; with an estimated 228 million cases of malaria and 405,000 deaths globally in 2018 it is clear to see that we need to counter it. Along with the infection and death rates, malaria wreaks havoc economically and socially in communities. It is a forefront cause of mass-poverty in certain areas.

The consensus for the prevention of malaria is vector control. WHO recommends protection via insecticide treated bed nets and residual spraying as these are widely considered to be the most useful in a wide range of circumstances. Nearly 50% of the at-risk population of malaria in Africa were sleeping under bed nets or had access to them in 2018. This is promising and it has shown results, with multiple factors leading to a large decline in cases but unfortunately this number has been at a standstill for the last few years. Insecticide is something which only needs to be sprayed once or twice a year and the higher the coverage, the better. Despite the lack of time and effort needed for this prevention method, the number of people spraying the inside of their houses has declined from 5% to 2% from 2010 to 2018 due to a lack of funds. Especially in this time, when Covid-19 has sent shockwaves around the globe, these practices have heavily declined as they are deemed to not take priority as essential medical treatment in this time of need.

Recently, insecticides have become less useful as the parasite has started to build resistance to it. For instance, 70+ countries reported that there was resistance in at

least one of the four classes (organochlorines, organophosphates, carbamates and pyrethroids) and even more worryingly,

27 countries report resistance to all four main classes of insecticide.

As the insecticides will eventually become redundant, scientists have been researching alternative methods, which may seem drastic but ultimately will have a positive effect if their experiments are successful.

They are experimenting with genetically modified mosquitoes which have been modified with a gene drive (a gene which is selfish and takes priority) so when they are eventually released into the normal mosquito population, the modification will be widespread.

With this method, almost all the offspring have this modification rather than the normal 50-50 percent chance. These are similar to the mosquitos which have been modified to fend off diseases like Zika and dengue.

The female mosquitos which have been modified to have mouths like males, meaning they will be unable to bite and spread malaria. They also have mutated their reproductive organs, so they cannot lay offspring. The aim is that if the mosquitos are released into the wild, the male mosquitos will eventually sterilise all the females and the spread of malaria would come to a halt.

Malaria is considered a very serious problem because of the sheer number of cases and deaths, the economic and social impact, the building resistance to insecticides to

19

fend off malaria and the lack of funding. Covid-19 has not helped whatsoever, further damaging the work of all the scientists, volunteers and workers dedicating their lives to this cause. It is evident we need to act, as people continue to die day by day. People in developing countries lack the funds to pay for anti-malarial drugs if infected, and some have no funds to pay for bed nets or low-level insecticides.

To put it bluntly, we are not coping well; we have started to pay more attention and we are trying our best to prevent the next infection or the next death, but we still lack the necessary funding and backing to completely protect every person globally from the threat of malaria.

Bibliography: https://www.who.int/news-room/factsheets/detail/malaria https://www.who.int/news-room/ feature-stories/detail/world-malariareport-2019 http://npr.org/sections/ goatsandsoda/2019/02/20/693735499/ scientists-release-controversialgenetically-modified-mosquitoes-inhigh-securit#:~:text=Scientists%20 Release%20Controversial%20 Genetically%20Modified%20 Mosquitoes%20In%20HighSecurity%20Lab,-Listen%C2%B7%20 6%3A59&text=Genetically%20 modified%20%22gene%20 drive%22%20mosquitoes%20 feed%20on%20warm%20cow’s%20 blood.,-Scientists%20hope%20 these&text=The%20goal%20is%20 to%20see,Africa%2C%20where%20 most%20cases%20occur. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-uscanada-53856776

Can malaria be completely eradicated?

Jai 9C2

M

alaria, the scourge of Sub-Saharan Africa, is one of the world’s most deadly diseases.

One million people die and 400 million suffer the pain and consequences, each year, mostly in Africa, nearer to the equator. The plasmodium that spreads malaria, rides on the Anopheles mosquito, spreading the disease.

Many optimists believe that malaria can be eradicated in the long term, because of new technologies such as CRISPR

gene editing. This method of gene editing, edits the genes in the mosquitos, stopping them from spreading malaria.

However, only half of the offspring would inherit the DNA as most genes have a “failsafe” genome; and this would hardly make a difference as the population of mosquitos are so vast! To counter this problem, Gene Drive, comes in which is a method that cause the new genome to become dominant over the old gene. If we released enough of these mosquitos,

20

then the anti-malarial gene would spread hastily as 99.5% of the offspring would carry the gene. Plasmodium would die out as it would have no host and we could destroy malaria once and for all! Mosquitos would even profit from this as they have no gain from the parasite and malaria could be the beginning of this new technology; so many insects which carry diseases could be stopped in a peaceful, environmentally friendly way to us and them.

Testing for Malaria

However, others believe that malaria cannot be eradicated because the GNI (Gross National Income) for areas of high infection, like Sub-Saharan Africa (where 90% of all cases occur) is astonishingly low only US$1550 (2019) compared to the UK’s US$40000 (2015).

This means that these poor countries, which have been exposed to a lot of malaria do not have the resources to prevent or eradicate malaria.

Even though ITNs (bed nets that prevent people from catching malaria and spreading it) are cheap, people live in poorly built areas / communities that cannot afford them.

Another, social-based, reason to why malaria cannot be easily eradicated is due to the extremely bad conditions that developing countries live in.

An example of this is India, which in rural villages, has dirt roads. Unfortunately, these dirt roads are hard to access in the wet monsoon seasons (May to September; five whole months), which means people cannot travel to more developed areas for malaria medication and the mosquitos will breed in the stagnant water.

To conclude, I believe that it will be impossible to eradicate malaria because of how poor these developing countries are, unless other countries do more work to help step in for the poorer ones. This is highly unlikely, especially since the Covid-19 pandemic, as more countries would now probably look after themselves much more from now on. What do you think?

Can malaria be eradicated from our world forever?

21

Sources: Kurzgesagt - Malaria, [CRISPR] https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=TnzcwTyr6cE Statista, [Africa Death Stats] https:// www.statista.com/statistics/1029337/ top-causes-of-death-africa/ Macrotrends, [GNI] https://www. macrotrends.net/countries/SSF/ sub-saharan-africa-/gni-percapita#:~:text=Sub%2DSaharan%20 Africa%20gni%20per%20 capita%20for%202019%20was%20 %241%2C550,a%201.22%25%20 increase%20from%202017

https://unsplash.com/photos/gklfv5avr4c

Malaria: a cause or result of poverty?

M

alaria is a wide-spread disease that (according to the World Health Organisation) has affected over 231 million people globally just in 2018, with a huge percentage of this figure passing away, and other sources believing that malaria has affected and resultantly killed half of the 107 billion people ever lived.

However, is this deadly malady attracted to poorer regions or do they leave the infected areas less wealthy?

Cause: When malaria enters the bloodstream, said human will feel unwell and may pass away without medical attention, malaria cases reduce capacity in hospitals and clinics meaning more pressure on the government providing the

Lucas 9J1 financial resources for these medical edifices for a larger patient capacity for other or the same illness. This will inevitably enhance the strain on the governments distribution of funds and may (if demands from different necessary development and maintenance factors of a country, e.g. transport, housing are too

high) result in a backpedalling economy, increasing poverty throughout the nation.

In addition, it is evident that when a person is infected with malaria, they feel “under the weather” and incapable of completing everyday activities such as going for a walk and potentially making themselves meals. This also includes going to work. This will reduce productivity in the corresponding professions and therefore foreign companies may stop investing in these now

22

under-performing businesses and the country’s development and economy factors will slow down.

From a prevention perspective, we see major financial tension on (for example) the eradication of “mosquito breeding grounds” as this requires an eco-friendly method of draining stagnant bodies of water or investment in filtration and/or water systems (e.g. the London sewage system) as mosquitos will not be able to reproduce on relatively clean, moving water.

There are also other factors to nation-spread prevention on malaria – this includes the mass production of nets, clothing (skin exposure reduced) and the “repellent” price lowered for more accessibility meaning larger governmental investment in “repellent” on top of all the

necessary funds to maintain a country’s status on the development indicator. This will inescapably increase taxation on citizens (to fill in the new economic gap) meaning less disposable income available to them. This could prompt reduced prices on goods - they will now have to receive their stock from cheaper suppliers in order for the public to favour them over others, however this could mean lower quality products and therefore a less wealthy environment.

in tropical rainforests, however, Brazil is only “low” in infection rates whereas said African regions are “high”. This is because Brazil (along with the majority of South America) is much more developed that African countries; it is an MIC (emerging economy) whilst Africa is predominantly lower income.

Result:

This essentially means that if a higher income country were to attempt to halt the spread through prevention means, they would have a greater chance than a lower income country as they have more money to spend on resources and methods to achieve this goal. Insecticide treated nets demonstrate well how a wealthier country would respond in contrast to a LIC; they are cheap and relatively easy to make (depending on the efficiency/production rate of that government) however, the manufacturing might prove problematic to a country with less of an economy to invest into factories and workplaces for produce – whilst this will no doubt be simpler for a larger

Between these two sources we can see a direct correlation between the wealth of a country and its respective rate of infection; the wealthier the country, the less malaria cases.

A good example of this is Brazil and how it is on the same latitude as central African countries. We know that Brazil has humid/ hot regions (Amazonia) and that mid-Africa is richly dense

The difference of how infected a nation is (depending on whether they are HIC or LIC), is their response to outbreaks through their economical capacity.

23

economic power.

Once they are produced in vast numbers there is the issue of distribution to all vulnerable citizens, this does not just mean spreading them across the country, it also means making sure everyone in need gets a necessary amount and that wealthier individuals do not purchase more than their fair/rationed amount. Doing this for all areas within a nation requires a huge effort and may never be accomplished. If this is the outcome, malaria will continue to spread through the

LIC in result of a lack of nets.

Overall: Malaria has the potential to burden the economy of any country and leave them in a less financially strong position than when the malady found them by requiring a larger percentage of the economic division of funds than affordable. However, it is far more likely that an LIC will have a higher infection rate as they are already ill-prepared to handle and control Malaria; this will surely mean a greater struggle to distribute prevention resources (e.g. nets, “repellent”) and wide spread protection for the nation in general.

Malaria Transmission Cycle Frome: /https://aneosiobe.ngo/frmBlogDeatails.aspx?BlogPostlD=24

Malaria: a disease out of control?

Kailaash 9S2

M

alaria is a tropical disease caused by the parasite Plasmodium.

It is transmitted to humans by a bite of an infected female Anopheles mosquito. In 2017, malaria affected an estimated

219 million people globally, causing 435,000 deaths. The disease is the most common in Africa and some countries in Asia. The mortality rate ranges from 0.3-2.2% and can reach the ranges of 11-30% where malaria

24

is more severe.

Female Anopheles mosquitoes breed in areas where there is still, hot water. Also, the area must be moderately humid for them to breed. Therefore, malaria is

most prevalent in the continent of Africa, more specifically in countries like Sierra Leone.

Another reason malaria is most prevalent in those areas is because, there are many developing countries who do not have access to the healthcare required to treat malaria as they cannot afford it.

Spatially, malaria varies quite a lot. In many countries like the UK, USA and Canada, malaria is very rare, and cases are mostly from tourism. In countries near the equator, such as Venezuela, Anopheles mosquitoes are most common due to the heat and humidity, hence the cases keep rising as do the deaths. In the continent of Africa, more specifically in developing countries such as Ethiopia, malaria is

most prevalent. Also in Asia, countries such as India and Sri Lanka suffer from malaria due to immense heat and humidity.

Malaria has been around for a very long time and there have been major breakthroughs regarding healthcare yet, many people cannot access it. The doctor to patient ratio can be as high as one to fifty thousand. This makes the tablets and medication for malaria very expensive so many people in poverty cannot access it. However, there are many ways to prevent getting malaria. One way is to sleep

with a net around your bed to stop the mosquitoes from getting in. Another way is to buy some strong repellent to make the mosquitoes go away or even kill them. These methods are very cheap and can help prevent malaria.

Also, in hot countries many people walk around shirtless or with skin exposed. This is very dangerous as a mosquito could bite you so wearing thin clothing to cover your body is beneficial. Malaria is a disease out of control solely due to our lack of helping developing countries. If we donate some money or healthcare to these countries, they will gain the medication that they need, and we can eventually achieve the UN’s goal of eradicating malaria.

Photo: Mother and Child. Sierra Leone by Annie Spratt on Unsplash

25

Photo by Annie Spratt on Unsplash

‘Malaria is the epidemic of the poor’.

Lewis 9C2

T

he statement ‘malaria is the epidemic of the poor’ indicates malaria and poverty are very closely related, and that malaria leads to poverty and poverty leads to the malaria disease.

malaria is often referred to as the epidemic of the poor.

Whilst the disease is heavily determined by climate and ecology, and not poverty per se, the impact of malaria takes its toll on the poorest, those least able to afford preventative and

26

medical treatment. According to UN economists, malaria is one of the four causes of poverty.

Each year it kills approximately three million people, and it is estimated to cost Africa 30 billion dollars per year. Professor Jeffrey Sachs, author of ‘End of

Poverty’ says ending malaria is the most important factor into lifting Africa out of extreme poverty. An example of the connection between malaria and poverty is the sale of bad drugs to poor people. According to WHO estimates, 20% of the people who die from malaria, die because they took bad drugs. Poor people may not afford proper anti-malaria medication unless the medication is subsidised. This evidence shows that poverty is hard to get rid of when malaria exists.

The indirect costs of malaria include the loss of productivity or income associated with the illness or death. This might be expressed as the cost of lost days of work from formal employment and the value of unpaid work

done in the home by both men and women. In the case of death, the indirect cost includes the discounted future earnings of those who die. The direct costs include a combination of both prevention and treatment of the disease. Private expenditures include individual or family spending on insecticide treated mosquito nets, doctors’ fees, anti-malarial drugs, transport to health facilities, support for the patient and sometimes an accompanying family member during hospital visits.

Public expenditures include spending by the government on maintaining health facilities and healthcare infrastructure, publicly managed vector control, education and research. In

27

some countries with a heavy malaria burden, the disease may account for as much as 40% of public health expenditure, 30%50% of inpatient admissions and up to 50% of outpatient visits.

In conclusion, I believe that malaria is a disease of the poor and Africa cannot escape poverty when malaria exists.

Therefore, African leaders should aspire to eliminate malaria. Such an achievement would save millions of lives and eradicate the vicious cycle of poverty and disease that continues to grip the continent.

This would also save 30 billion dollars per year that are loses in productivity and medical costs.

Malaria Malevolence: truly uncontrollable or not?

Ibrahim 9R2

M

alaria is an infectious disease spread by a mosquito species known as “anopheles” via bites on human skin. It is a parasitic disease which, when entering the human body, first enters the liver. This is where they mature and then infect erythrocytes (red blood cells). Within two to three days, the parasites multiply and burst the erythrocytes open, continuing to affect even

more of them. Because of this, malaria produces a number of symptoms, including: nausea, fever, diarrhoea, vomiting, headaches, respiratory problems and in some severe cases, coma and death.

Anopheles mosquitoes thrive and survive best in tropical and humid climates , with an optimum temperature of 24 – 30 degrees Celsius (ncbi).

28

They breed in still or stagnant water such as pools or potholes and are most active at night.

Anopheles, in order to spread malaria, have to bite humans with naked, exposed skin. This can explain why countries near the equator with tropical and hot climates in which people don’t cover up much are those the worst affected. A diagram of this spread can be seen here.

https://bit.ly/3ixzdJN

There are roughly 400 million people infected by malaria around the globe every year, with two million deaths per year.

The worst affected nations in the world are the following: India, Pakistan, Indonesia, some other parts of South East Asia and the Middle-East, Western and Central Africa, Madagascar and South-eastern Africa, Venezuela, Mexico and Northern South America.

Unusually, Northern Africa and South Africa are much less affected by the disease unlike most parts of Africa. A diagram showing this can be seen on the following page Despite how malaria might seem like an unstoppable disease at first, there are some methods that can prevent mosquitoes from entering homes and spreading it.

29

For example, one can place mosquito nets on windows and mosquito sheets over beds or spread toxic gas in cracks to kill and stop the Anopheles mosquitoes from entering the home when sleeping. This is very helpful in LICs in Central and Western Africa where in some rural areas, huts are sometimes made of straw with lots of cracks and holes with no covering for the windows.

Mosquito repellent spray, the drainage of still water and the compulsory wearing of thin clothes outside all help to prevent mosquitoes infecting people with malaria when they are outside as they reduce the chances of mosquitoes from infiltrating one’s surroundings as well as preventing mosquitos from biting human skin or breed young.

However, the level of development of a nation can affect the abundance of these products and ways to eradicate malaria. In LICs in Western Africa, Central Africa and Indonesia, anti-malarial drugs and sprays are too expensive for some inhabitants to buy and receive due to poorer healthcare. Since there also higher people to doctor ratios, prescriptions and diagnoses would be rarer to receive too.

Obviously, governments from MEDCs have been trying to gather the resources needed for

the elimination of malaria and thus contributing to the Global Technical Strategy for Malaria as published by the WHO.

This contribution has saved over seven million lives and prevented over one billion cases of malaria. This brings me to my conclusion, about whether malaria is truly uncontrollable or not.

https://ourworldindata.org/malaria

30

According to the facts, it seems very likely that malaria can be easy to contain and stop altogether, given how one billion cases and seven million deaths have been prevented.

If most nations come together to try and resolve this problem, malaria would be on its last legs. In my opinion, if each country does its part, malaria will be easily controlled. That is, unless it evolves or mutates, and humanity would need completely different ways to stop it.

31

https://pixabay.com/photos/mosquito -bug-insect-pest-disease-19487

www.habsboys.org.uk @habsboys /habsboys @habsboysschool

Pixabay

Haberdashers’ Boys’ School Butterfly Lane, Elstree, Hertfordshire WD6 3AF 020 8266 1700 Registered Charity No: 313996