Should we,the U.S. supply health disease survalience services to Africa for African Typanosomiasis?

Also, there is a much higher prevalence of trypanosomiasis in rural areas while HIV/AIDS is much more common in areas with higher population densities. This means that it is much more effective to implement disease surveying methods in order to monitor outbreaks. For every reported case of Trypanosomiasis there are three unreported cases because people in rural areas do not always seek medical attention due to a lack of personnel. Disease surveillance for Trypanosomiasis makes the most sense especially because there are areas where it affects more people than any other communicable disease, including HIV/AIDS

As for the solution for this problem, it is not necessary to individually treat all those infected with trypanosomiasis (which i will now call SS). As mentioned in my previous post, the tsetse fly is the carrier of the parasites that cause SS. Eradicating the tsetse fly is most effective way to eliminate SS. This can be done in a few ways
1. Sterile insect technique is a way of breeding infertile male tsetse flies. When they are re-released back into the wild they mate with female tsetse flies but no offspring is produced. This has been empirically proven to dramatically accelerate the extinction of a species. (Used in Zanzibar, parts of Ethiopia on the tsetse fly, used in the US on the new world screw worm and Mediterranean fruit fly)
2. There are some conventional methods being used not but they do not have near the same impact. These include insecticides but species develop an immunity to pesticides over time. Vaccinations are also being used but they come with a 10% chance of mortality.
3. Fly traps and fake cows are also being used to attract and kill the pest. Although this can help to somewhat contain populations and prevent them from spreading, it is not a long term solution. Only a combination of SIT and conventional methods can eradicate the tsetse fly.

There have been governments that actually support a US lead SIT campaign stating that

Why the hell are we debating about inherency lets look to solvency which went dropped on the last three posts, the question comes down to if we provide disease surveillance to SSA will it solve and the answer is no, cross apply my solvency attacks from my first and second post

I have several comments:
1. Neither one of you know a damn thing about this issue
2. Get you facts straight: African Trypanosomiasis infects 400,000 people in Sub Sahara Afrika and has a fatality rate of 80%
3. It does not make a bit of sense to say that focusing on individual diseases "isn't going to help anything." Every disease has a different cause and cure- the only way to effectively eliminate disease is to find specific cures. The cure for for HIV/AIDS is not the same as the cure for malaria.
4. It is possible to at least have an impact of the governance of these countries. One of the main reasons for poor governance is a poverty due to lack of economic development and production. The tsetse fly, carrier of trypanosomiasis, is actually one of the root cause of poverty in affected countries for a few reasons
a) Citizens in rural areas are driven off their farmlands in attempts to avoid tsetse fly populations which means that there is a plethora of arable farmland that is not in use
b) Trypanosomiasis also affects livestock- when livestock are infected they are no longer available for use in agricultural activities, thus farmers are forced to plow their fields by hand
c) Afrikan Sleeping sickness (Trypanosomiasis) has a similar effect as HIV/AIDS- a slow degradation of the body which leads to a less productive workforce
i have more to say, but no time- make sure you check later

The first point you make is Public Health Assistance shouldn't affect everyone. This is not only abusive but it exploits the definition of Public, as far as i'm concerned the universal definition of Public is everyone pertaining to the general population. Your point is that public can pertain to sub-groups, this is abusive because it opens up a new world of affirmatives that can target anything ie affs that deal with racism, or sexism etc. Furthermore people can start running affs that contain diseases only prevalent to some tribes in Africa this is extremely abusive and decreases the educational value of debate. Next you try to point out that the terminal impact is global nuclear war, i don't know how updated you are with your current events but who has nukes in africa and if people are dying of diseases why would they want to nuke the rest of the world. Next you dropped the CDC argument so even if you think you win on topicality you loose on solvency because there is no cure for the disease your 1ac highlights which means the essential goal of the CDC is to warn the rest of the world that there is a disease that is very contagious and we should close our borders, and also what you need to know is the CDC can't implement its program in Africa right now because they are stretched so thin and are having health worker shortages this would ultimately link you to a reps k stating that you portray africa as this hell hole filled with savages that need to bring their diseases to a control. By the way i don't know what you were talking about when you went on a rant talking about aids in india etc etc.

DrAcula -- I would find your post much more credible if it wasn't replete with misspellings. Anyways, your "topicality violation" is violently off the mark. Public health assistance doesn't have to help everyone who is affected by a particular disease. It includes targeting specific sub-groups. Plus your interpretation of the topic is atrocious for a few reasons. First, it massively mixes burdens because it makes the affirmative solvency a topicality question as well. For example, if the affirmative solvency was mitigated so that they only won they solved 50% of the problem, then they are untopical. Mixing burdens makes good judging near impossible. This also creates an unmeetable burden for the affirmative, which is a perfect segway to the second argument your interpretation is egregious. It guts CORE affirmative ground. Your interpretation makes HIV/AIDS affirmatives not topical because there are individuals in India, the United, etc etc who are affected by HIV/AIDS. It also makes the Mexico City Policy affirmative not topical because that is a global policy. That doesn't even touch on how arbitrary your interpretation is. How do we determine who is an is not "affected" by a problem? If I have a cousin who lives in Ethiopia who dies from Malaria, then aren't I affected? If the terminal impact to the Affirmative is global nuclear war, wouldn't that affect everyone? Even outside of sub-Saharan Africa? Which means, any affirmative which a terminal impact that is GLOBAL in scope is extra-topical because the affirmative prevents something from AFFECTING someone outside of sub-Saharan Africa.
Plus, think about your interpretation in a real-world policymaking sense. Your interpretation would bracket off pragmatic solutions. Imagine if policymakers refused to take small actions to tackle parts of a big problem? Your interpretation justifies saying, "We shouldn't prohibit people from throwing Bricks through Chinese restaurant windows because it doesn't affect EVERYONE."

First of all your AFF is not Topical because the resoultion says PUBLIC HEATLH ASSISTANCE and i'm pretty sure the disease your talking about doesn't affect everyone in Africa, next you say the CDC has been in Africa since the 40's this is not true the CDC just established their Global Disease Detection program last year, meaning its a new thing right now, further more even if you put a CDC in Africa, it will do noting, they will go look there's a disease lets warn the rest of the world so we don't get that disease, and for them to even find out if there's a disease doctors have to report it to the CDC, and FYI there are 300,000 pateints for every one doctor in SSA, which means your disease will never get reported and you have no solvency nor are you topical, furthermore all the CDC does is Qurantine people which is another debate.