I didn't make any comments, Greg, re how the 1st world views Malaria and its death toll.

I commented that in terms of the governments of African countries and their decisions regarding how to direct both their own resources and foreign aid, those countries, at least until now with this much larger outbreak of Ebola, have given much higher priority to public health measures for diseases other than Ebola for some sound reasons from the perspective of how to deploy public health resources based on numbers of deaths within a given population. I used malaria, AIDS and cholera as 3 examples of diseases that have posed a much greater health threat to the populations of many African countries in terms of numbers infected and numbers killed thus far.

mg, I am sorry you are offended. That was certainly not my intention. I asked a question that you chose to answer. I appreciate that you did answer, but you had no obligation to do so. I also tried to convey clearly that I was inquiring, not challenging. I admire your practicality. I also think I place more value on individual choice than do you. We are simply different about that. That doesn't make either of us right or wrong - I think the success of our species has been largely due to the diversity among us as well as the dynamic balance between the individual and the social. You and I weigh in on different points and on different sides of that dynamic scale. I mistakenly thought it possible for me to express my own discomfort with your position that focuses more on the benefits of social control and less on the costs without you taking personal offense. I was wrong. I happen to think it important to humankind for people to be able to acknowledge, confront and discuss these differences in perspective in order for us to continue to be a successful species. Again, I am sorry you are offended.