Despite the lack of fanfare, this is the biggest news on HN today, much bigger than, say Robinhood paying a fine.

Historically, Malaria was the single greatest killer of human beings. It is even possible that Malaria killed the majority of all people that ever lived. Even today, Malaria kills hundreds of thousands every year. The eradication of Malaria from the largest country in the world, one that had 40 million cases a year in the 1940's, is a testament to the power of human ingenuity and coordination. We should celebrate.

I think we have a tendency to focus in on small things and ignore the big picture of the improving human condition (driven largely by China, on average, over the last few decades).

Article mentions anti malarial drugs, but not which ones.

Hydroxychloroquine or a stronger variation is a typical malaria drug. Something you take when traveling to hotspots.

I imagine the anti-malarial drugs they are talking about are the ones derived from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemisinin , which won a Chinese researcher a Nobel Prize a few years back.

I grew up in a very poor rural area in China (1990s), and I have never heard of anyone getting malaria in my whole life.

It seems that the cases moved from 30 million/year in the 1940s down to around 5000/year in the 1990s. This latest announcement is that they've had zero indigenous cases for the last three years.

'World Peace' is next...

We're trusting WHO's perspective on China again?

You have to trust somebody, or nobody. What source would you rather believe to corroborate or track these things?

Somebody without a recent track record of protecting China's lies. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/04/08/who-china-...

And is there a somebody? Because if you are going to disbelieve everything the WHO does due to one highly politicized issue, you are going to need a replacement. The WHO certification is important because the WHO is the source governments use for providing travel advice and health related immigration controls.

It's hard to figure out what you're trying to point out specifically. There's a lot of words and emotions and editorials but the article doesn't actually say anything. Can you point to some primary source for the point you're making?

"Without China’s deceit and WHO’s solicitude for Beijing, the outbreak might have been more limited, and the world at the very least would have had more time to react to the virus."

"So, the WHO endorsed China’s narrative during the crucial early days of its cover-up."

"Despite the emerging consensus that China has lied about its number of cases and deaths, and despite China’s refusal to share key information about the virus, WHO hasn’t said a discouraging word about China’s actions."

That's directly in the article. Purporting that the article doesn't say anything is somewhat a stretch. Maybe you don't subscribe to what it's saying and find its sources lacking - as it is an opinion piece.