Mosquitoes kill an estimated 700 000 people a year. If infected with viruses that cause diseases like chikungunya, dengue and Zika, mosquitos can transmit them to humans in one bite. Researchers have now pilot-deployed a new technique to control diseases transmitted by mosquitoes by making use of nature. It is one of the new tools WHO recommends for pilot deployment as a response to Zika virus.
Case study from Brazil:-
Rita Ramos lives in Jurujuba, a fishing community of about 1000 people, across Guanabara Bay from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. She is an administrator for her community, and her husband works in a construction materials shop. Since June 2016, she has been taking part in a project to help control a killer in her community: mosquitoes.
‘
Researchers at Monash University in Australia (with the participation of Dr. Luciano Moreira from Brazil’s federal research centre, Fundação Oswaldo Cruz, or, Fiocruz), have discovered that mosquitoes artificially infected with a bacterium called Wolbachia do not transmit dengue, chikungunya and Zika as easily. Wolbachia bacteria exist naturally in 60% of common insects.
This innovative approach to control mosquito-transmitted diseases was brought to Brazil by Fiocruz in 2012. Initially a dengue control project, it began in a small community close to the international airport in 2014. In the current phase of the project, now in Jurujuba – Niterói, the researchers are breeding and releasing mosquitoes with Wolbachia bacteria. They aim to see how well these mosquitoes, by mating with wild mosquitoes, can pass the bacteria on to the next generation of mosquitoes, therefore creating populations of mosquitoes that cannot transmit deadly viruses.
In early 2015, Rita met Jorge Pedrosa (center) through her community health worker. Jorge, who coordinates activities that engage communities in the dengue control project, explained the research project where this special type of mosquito is bred and released directly into the community. “At first, Jorge came to explain the same thing every week,” says Rita. “We did not understand the project. We also wanted to know why they had chosen our community.” She is one of 28 households in this part of Jurujuba which participate in the project. Rita and Jorge are joined by Gabriel Sylvestre Ribeiro (right), entomology coordinator for the project.
Rita keeps this white bucket under her front stairs. It contains a small packet of mosquito eggs, a few pellets of fish food and water. Together, these form an ideal breeding atmosphere for the Wolbachia-infected mosquitoes. Gabriel and colleagues come to inspect and refresh the contents every two weeks. Rita says she has not noticed a higher number of mosquitoes in the community, and her point of view has changed. ”When I see them I don’t kill them. I let them fly. I am not afraid of them… Now, to me, it is like a privilege to have the mosquitoes here.”
Rita played an important role in reaching out to the community before the project was rolled out. First, researchers from Fiocruz, the research institute, talked to community health workers to answer their questions about the project, then asked them to help make contact with influential and respected community members. They held meetings and explained all aspects of the project. Jorge says, “we explained the history of the project, about diseases like dengue and Zika. We presented the science. We let them know this project would be going on in other neighborhoods, too, including affluent neighborhoods. We were very transparent. We did not promise anything.”
Jorge and Gabriel visit Jurujuba every two weeks, as well as other pilot communities. These communities, along with others in Australia, Indonesia and Viet Nam, are gathering valuable information that will help researchers understand how well this method works to control disease. These countries are also part of the global programme that is aiming to eliminate dengue.
WHO is encouraging research into this new method of mosquito control. In March 2016, the WHO Vector Control Advisory Group recommended the pilot deployment of Wolbachia-carrying mosquitoes to test the method’s effectiveness, to be followed by independent robust monitoring and evaluation. “Wolbachia bacteria are not a silver bullet,” says Gabriel. “But it is really promising.” Results from Jurujuba and other Brazilian communities are expected to be folded into wider results.
Receive Daily Updates
Recent Posts
Steve Ovett, the famous British middle-distance athlete, won the 800-metres gold medal at the Moscow Olympics of 1980. Just a few days later, he was about to win a 5,000-metres race at London’s Crystal Palace. Known for his burst of acceleration on the home stretch, he had supreme confidence in his ability to out-sprint rivals. With the final 100 metres remaining,
[wptelegram-join-channel link=”https://t.me/s/upsctree” text=”Join @upsctree on Telegram”]Ovett waved to the crowd and raised a hand in triumph. But he had celebrated a bit too early. At the finishing line, Ireland’s John Treacy edged past Ovett. For those few moments, Ovett had lost his sense of reality and ignored the possibility of a negative event.
This analogy works well for the India story and our policy failures , including during the ongoing covid pandemic. While we have never been as well prepared or had significant successes in terms of growth stability as Ovett did in his illustrious running career, we tend to celebrate too early. Indeed, we have done so many times before.
It is as if we’re convinced that India is destined for greater heights, come what may, and so we never run through the finish line. Do we and our policymakers suffer from a collective optimism bias, which, as the Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman once wrote, “may well be the most significant of the cognitive biases”? The optimism bias arises from mistaken beliefs which form expectations that are better than the reality. It makes us underestimate chances of a negative outcome and ignore warnings repeatedly.
The Indian economy had a dream run for five years from 2003-04 to 2007-08, with an average annual growth rate of around 9%. Many believed that India was on its way to clocking consistent double-digit growth and comparisons with China were rife. It was conveniently overlooked that this output expansion had come mainly came from a few sectors: automobiles, telecom and business services.
Indians were made to believe that we could sprint without high-quality education, healthcare, infrastructure or banking sectors, which form the backbone of any stable economy. The plan was to build them as we went along, but then in the euphoria of short-term success, it got lost.
India’s exports of goods grew from $20 billion in 1990-91 to over $310 billion in 2019-20. Looking at these absolute figures it would seem as if India has arrived on the world stage. However, India’s share of global trade has moved up only marginally. Even now, the country accounts for less than 2% of the world’s goods exports.
More importantly, hidden behind this performance was the role played by one sector that should have never made it to India’s list of exports—refined petroleum. The share of refined petroleum exports in India’s goods exports increased from 1.4% in 1996-97 to over 18% in 2011-12.
An import-intensive sector with low labour intensity, exports of refined petroleum zoomed because of the then policy regime of a retail price ceiling on petroleum products in the domestic market. While we have done well in the export of services, our share is still less than 4% of world exports.
India seemed to emerge from the 2008 global financial crisis relatively unscathed. But, a temporary demand push had played a role in the revival—the incomes of many households, both rural and urban, had shot up. Fiscal stimulus to the rural economy and implementation of the Sixth Pay Commission scales had led to the salaries of around 20% of organized-sector employees jumping up. We celebrated, but once again, neither did we resolve the crisis brewing elsewhere in India’s banking sector, nor did we improve our capacity for healthcare or quality education.
Employment saw little economy-wide growth in our boom years. Manufacturing jobs, if anything, shrank. But we continued to celebrate. Youth flocked to low-productivity service-sector jobs, such as those in hotels and restaurants, security and other services. The dependence on such jobs on one hand and high-skilled services on the other was bound to make Indian society more unequal.
And then, there is agriculture, an elephant in the room. If and when farm-sector reforms get implemented, celebrations would once again be premature. The vast majority of India’s farmers have small plots of land, and though these farms are at least as productive as larger ones, net absolute incomes from small plots can only be meagre.
A further rise in farm productivity and consequent increase in supply, if not matched by a demand rise, especially with access to export markets, would result in downward pressure on market prices for farm produce and a further decline in the net incomes of small farmers.
We should learn from what John Treacy did right. He didn’t give up, and pushed for the finish line like it was his only chance at winning. Treacy had years of long-distance practice. The same goes for our economy. A long grind is required to build up its base before we can win and celebrate. And Ovett did not blame anyone for his loss. We play the blame game. Everyone else, right from China and the US to ‘greedy corporates’, seems to be responsible for our failures.
We have lowered absolute poverty levels and had technology-based successes like Aadhaar and digital access to public services. But there are no short cuts to good quality and adequate healthcare and education services. We must remain optimistic but stay firmly away from the optimism bias.
In the end, it is not about how we start, but how we finish. The disastrous second wave of covid and our inability to manage it is a ghastly reminder of this fact.