4 ms·

I feel there's a huge flaw in the logic with this application. If these people could afford smart phones, they probably wouldn't have a huge malaria problem.

I feel there's a huge flaw in the logic with this application. If these people could afford smart phones, they probably wouldn't have a huge malaria problem. Am I missing something?

mousa 15y ago
Wealthy Africans get malaria too, and besides, even the poor will be getting smart phones soon. It's going to be like cell phones which were pretty ubiquitous in the third world years ago when it wasn't even the case here. They bypassed landlines and went straight to cell, and the same will probably be true of computers and smart phones.
- Apocryphon 15y ago
  Not to mention this can always be an ad hoc tool for aid workers and doctors.
sorbus 15y ago
The current tests have very low accuracy (the article says 40%). These tests are likely being administered by trained professionals, and if the cost of each test is sufficiently high (for materials, and that it would take several tests to get a reasonably accurate answer), it might be cheaper in the long run (or even short periods of time) to buy these medical professionals smartphones and the lenses instead of the supplies for existing tests. If the cost of a smartphone and lens is greater than a full microscope with a webcam attached (to allow the computer or a dedicated device to do the analysis), then smartphones are still a useful proof of concept as well as being far more portable and being easier to power. It doesn't seem logical on the face, but once you start adding up costs it's quite likely that it would be, especially if they can convince a smartphone manufacturer to donate a few hundred or thousand units (I'm sure that there are smartphone manufacturers donating money to the anti-malaria efforts already, as it's good publicity and can be used in advertising. Donating smartphones instead of money is a very small step, as well as possibly cheaper - the retail price for a smartphone is not the price of manufacture).
qq66 15y ago
Yeah, you're missing a lot. I don't know where to start. A lot of people in poor tropical countries live in dilapidated shacks but have a TV and smartphones. And anyone, rich or poor, in these countries can get malaria. A friend of mine died of malaria that he contracted in Africa, and he was a millionaire who only stayed in the best hotels.
desigooner 15y ago
If it works effectively, you wouldn't really need that many smartphones. A lot many countries go by with shared resources for many areas to get things done. E.g. In villages in India or Africa etc., there might be one person with a computer and an internet connection who might offer his/her services as a co-operative for the residents of the village. The same way, one smartphone equipped with the relevant applications per district or a village can effectively tender assistance to all those in need from the surrounding areas.

I feel there's a huge flaw in the logic with this application. If these people could afford smart phones, they probably wouldn't have a huge malaria problem. Am I missing something?

mousa 15y ago

Wealthy Africans get malaria too, and besides, even the poor will be getting smart phones soon. It's going to be like cell phones which were pretty ubiquitous in the third world years ago when it wasn't even the case here. They bypassed landlines and went straight to cell, and the same will probably be true of computers and smart phones.

Apocryphon 15y ago
Not to mention this can always be an ad hoc tool for aid workers and doctors.

sorbus 15y ago

The current tests have very low accuracy (the article says 40%). These tests are likely being administered by trained professionals, and if the cost of each test is sufficiently high (for materials, and that it would take several tests to get a reasonably accurate answer), it might be cheaper in the long run (or even short periods of time) to buy these medical professionals smartphones and the lenses instead of the supplies for existing tests. If the cost of a smartphone and lens is greater than a full microscope with a webcam attached (to allow the computer or a dedicated device to do the analysis), then smartphones are still a useful proof of concept as well as being far more portable and being easier to power. It doesn't seem logical on the face, but once you start adding up costs it's quite likely that it would be, especially if they can convince a smartphone manufacturer to donate a few hundred or thousand units (I'm sure that there are smartphone manufacturers donating money to the anti-malaria efforts already, as it's good publicity and can be used in advertising. Donating smartphones instead of money is a very small step, as well as possibly cheaper - the retail price for a smartphone is not the price of manufacture).

qq66 15y ago

Yeah, you're missing a lot. I don't know where to start. A lot of people in poor tropical countries live in dilapidated shacks but have a TV and smartphones. And anyone, rich or poor, in these countries can get malaria. A friend of mine died of malaria that he contracted in Africa, and he was a millionaire who only stayed in the best hotels.

desigooner 15y ago

If it works effectively, you wouldn't really need that many smartphones. A lot many countries go by with shared resources for many areas to get things done. E.g. In villages in India or Africa etc., there might be one person with a computer and an internet connection who might offer his/her services as a co-operative for the residents of the village. The same way, one smartphone equipped with the relevant applications per district or a village can effectively tender assistance to all those in need from the surrounding areas.