Since this isn't roleplay and refers to actual gameplay, it seems fine to go here.
I was wondering the pros and cons of Options 1 and 5 of the Malaria issue.
Quoted, but edited for brevity - neither of the options 2, 3 or 4 appeal to me.The Debate
"Malaria is a highly dangerous disease with no cure," says Dr Konrad Dodinas, one of the world's leading epidemiologists. "If we're going to control it then we've got to put money into researching a vaccine and new antimalarial drugs. We should also set out to provide prevention and awareness programmes, the whole caboodle. With a targeted and well-financed approach we can make an attempt to eradicate malaria from the face of Samozaryadnyastan! But we're going to need Samoz Dollars. Lots of them."
"DDT is also banned in several countries," remarks Colin Wall, one of your dourer advisers. "Do you really think we can destroy this disease? I don't. Whether we try to cure the disease or kill the mosquitoes it will just come back in an adapted form. What we should be doing is educating our citizens on preventative measures like mosquito nets and less environmentally dangerous insecticides. If anything, it's way cheaper."
This is the position your government is preparing to adopt.
Option 1 recommends vast scientific input, based on targeting malaria itself. Option 5 recommends focusing on preventative measures.
Now, given how the NS issues system takes points incredibly far, I'm concerned that Option 1 will render Malaria becoming resistant and remaining rampant as a disease. However, preventative measures like mosquito nets and minor insecticides would not deal with those currently infected - as Option 1 states, in NS there is no cure for Malaria.
As can be seen, Option 5 is the option currently selected.
Would anyone be able to tell me what the exact outcomes of options 1 and 5 were?
