Not sure why you were downvoted down much but here’s my 2 cents.

I first started taking anti-malarial medicine as a child. My entire life I’ve been hearing of resistance to one drug and then another drug, and then another. Also, whenever we took chloroquine or any other drugs on a regular basis, we were well aware that having the medicine in our body would not prevent malaria—-we took it just to help reduce the severity of malaria when we’d become infected. Looks like there are already strains resistant to your drug of choice:

https://malariajournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/14...

So preventing and even treating malaria has never been a sure thing with ANY drug that I’ve ever known.

May be worth mentioning that the article documenting malarone-resistant malaria is virtually 20 years old already. As far as I'm aware, the problem of drug-resistant malaria hasn't been getting better...

Thats a weird argument. "Lets not give the medicine that might help as that might also encourage mutations." --> basically you are saying let's deny it to the many dying today in order to ensure the few (that can afford it) can still use it in the future. A deeply immoral and selfish perspective if spelled out this way.

The only solution then is rapid and large-scale intervention. Massive use of the most effective/least side-effect variety of drug for all at risk populations for 3(?) months, then bring in the alternatives and quickly and widely ensure their use in those areas where resistant strains still spread.

I am not saying don’t treat people. The anti-malarial medicines we used growing up were very affordable, so access was not the problem. I’m saying the vaccine is more encouraging because the medicines have not been able to put much of a dent into the problem of malaria.