3 ms·

To invoke the notion of foreign entanglements in response to an epidemic, which knows no borders and can't really be contained to them, is kind of rich. I thin

To invoke the notion of foreign entanglements in response to an epidemic, which knows no borders and can't really be contained to them, is kind of rich. I think most people here are suggesting that we ought to, even as an isolationist state, if that is your preference, monitor and be prepared for pandemics even if they appear in other countries.

tathougies 7y ago
Indeed, and we pay for an organization whose purpose it is to do exactly that. We should be asking why that org (WHO) failed, instead of asking why we didn't fund yet another organization with the exact same mission. The question is why the US should have a unilateral office dedicated to pandemics in China when we have another multilateral one. We should have one or the other, for sure -- monitoring pandemics is important for national security -- but why should we have two?