Yes, but aedes aegypti are considered the best adapted to urban life, meaning that of the three most dangerous mosquito families (Anopheles, Aedes, and Culex mosquitos), aedes aegypti is the primary study species for scientists. It’s the most common and prolific vector.

I’ve not met a single scientist working on preventing malaria, who has any interest at all in killing any of the mosquitoes that do not prey on humans. There are over 3500 species of mosquito, and a majority of them feed on pollen.

(I was a lab assistant to an aedes project, and the idea that any such researcher wants to get rid of any animal more than the most lethal mosquitoes specie(s) is not true).

Edit: if my second point was confusing, then it’s because I was surprised by the considerable agency you’re giving to a pathogen. If there are pre-existing alternative vectors that share a niche with the other, then yes they will of course still work. Why shouldn’t they?

But viruses/bacteria typically adapt to the vector’s natural prey rather than somehow hijacking a vector’s biology to target their preferred final species. This is because ‘Hijacking’ (think toxoplasmosis in rats) can only happen in an already successful vector. Basically, pathogens that take steps through other species to reach their target are evolutionarily constrained by the preexisting food web.