This quote is particularly striking:

“With bed nets, all you do is distribute them,” says Segbaya. “With indoor residual spraying you have to hire people, train them in managing the pump, mixing insecticide, handling people’s property, all of which require more skill.”

Another factor is the cost – a net to protect one or two people costs £2-3. “Currently it costs around $400,000 (£238,000) to spray one district, which is maybe $10-15 (£6-9) per person. This is almost three times the cost of providing bed nets.”

Translation: It is easier and cost less. But it’s also less effective.

What’s disturbing is that this article insinuates that public sector spending must be augmented by private sector spending in order to afford the most effective Malaria control. I’m not sure how one can come to that conclusion, especially if you look at the net present cost including future health care costs and lost economic activity. And this doesn’t even begin to include the moral issue associated with human suffering from being infected with Malaria, which is totally preventable.

The journal article below covers how using both bednets and indoor spraying together gets massive reductions.

http://www.malariajournal.com/content/12/1/62

Conclusion: At ~$15/per person, and 700 million people, we could basically get rid of Malaria in Sub-Saharan Africa for $10 billion. To put that in perspective, that’s only about 55% of what US consumers spent on pet food in 2011.

(Source: http://www.statista.com/statistics/185577/us-dog-and-cat-food-product-shipment-value-since-2002/)