How to reduce flies? Here’s one way:
A Chinese city suburb has set a bounty on dead flies in a bid to promote public hygiene . . . Xigong, a district of Luoyang in the central province of Henan, paid out more than 1,000 yuan ($125) for about 2,000 dead flies on July 1, the day it launched the scheme with the aim of encouraging cleanliness in residential areas. . . An Internet user said that although the office had good intentions, the action itself had made the district a laughing stock.
“The key point is the government should encourage residents to clean up the environment so that no flies can live there, instead of spending money on dead flies,” the Internet user wrote.
Yes. This gets back to Erika Schwartz’s criticism of Gina Kolata and the NY Times for not mentioning prevention in an article about strokes. Kolata’s article accurately reflected the situation: far more interest in (i.e., money spent on) cure than prevention. It makes as much sense in America as it does in China.
Norman Temple and I wrote about a related problem: more support for high-tech than low-tech research, even though low-tech research has been more helpful. The low-tech research is more prevention-related.
More health-care absurdity.