I think collapsing the ecosystem of one region is already bad enough.

The point is that if an ecosystem needs to be "collapsed" to effect beneficial change for the humans living there in order to not die of illnesses, then so be it. Even referring to removing mosquitoes as "collapse" is not understanding the core argument, because not all collapse is bad and not all preservation is good; there is no value judgment in saying collapse but you are adding one there inherently.

If the foodchain collapses it's much worse for humans living there than malaria.

What part of the food chain is foundational on mosquitos? These are hypotheticals not rooted in any concrete argument.

I realize this is a dumb starting point, but ... Cows don't eat mosquitos, Feed corn is not pollinated by mosquitos, Orange groves do not require mosquitos. What, specifically, are we afraid of?

Sure, but it's unknown whether it will or not, that is what is being discussed.

I mean that certainly sounds unequivocally true.

But "collapse" is not what I'm saying. If you were to remove mosquitos in a localized region and observe the effects on the region's ecology, you could witness the problems, reintroduce the bugs, and revitalize the region (probably it'd recover anyway).

Mosquitos are fairly localized. Their range upperbound is 7 miles. Some just fly 300 feet and breed around your house. There are plenty of ecological phenomena that are managed in "a few miles" ranges, like fish populations, forests, etc.

I haven't heard a compelling reason in any of these threads to believe that it's actually dangerous to remove them from a few sq mile area.

There's no reason to be absolutist about problems we can manage, just based on unobserved worst case solutions with no risk profile attached.

You're making arguments based on pure faith. There is no substance to anything you're saying.

I'm sure they thought they had everything figured out when they introduced the cane toad in Australia as well.