"Malaria is a winning horse" - the one on which you should be hedging all your bets for a great quick win in the world of global disease racing. AIDS - it takes too long and there is no cure on the horizon anyway, and TB - we are in a losing battle with those tenacious little MDR bacteria, so why not focus on getting all those treated nets out and fighting malaria for much less. Maybe not, argues a recent Economist article, by systematically laying out the reasons why "one quick shot may not be enough" even when there are great wins to be had from malaria. You can read all of the eminently sensible reasons in the article, but what fascinated me about this analysis is the range of betting players and bookies (pardon my lack of correct horse racing lingo) that are putting their money on this winning horse - McKinsey consultants, NBA, ExxonMobil, George Bush, Gordon Brown, Fox Television's American Idol, Jeff Sachs, Dr. Kochi, the Gates Foundation and the list goes on and on. One very clear reason why everyone may be interested in betting on the malaria horse - that returns of significant magnitude are expected in winning time. Thanks to the Economist for pulling the reins on this one and reminding everyone, using Sri Lanka as an example, that the last stretch of the race can be the most challenging, so selecting a winner that has the stamina to make it to the finish line is both necessary and costly. In addition, my note to all betting players: global health surely needs some quick wins, but let's not pitch disease against disease in an attempt to win the Global Disease Derby - there isn't one.
CGD blog posts reflect the views of the authors, drawing on prior research and experience in their areas of expertise.
CGD is a nonpartisan, independent organization and does not take institutional positions.
