4 ms·

HIV/AIDS deaths likely to soar after USAID promises broken

21 points by pmags 2y ago

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
EA-3167 2y ago
It's undoubtedly a terrible thing to cut off funding for these commitments, but... the article makes it sound like DOOM is the forgone conclusion. We're talking about half a billion a year, the US is hardly the only entity on Earth capable of filling that gap. Why can't the EU step up a bit? Hell, why not BRICS if it comes to that? There's this sense that "only the US" can do it, when the reality seems to be that only the US was ever willing to do it, and without that willingness everyone is cooked.
- throwworhtthrow 2y ago
  The last paragraph of the article sums up why: > Piot is similarly gloomy. “If it were not so abrupt, countries could explore alternative funding, but not in a few weeks,” he says. As to UNAIDS, he adds, “I don’t see how it can survive.”
  - EA-3167 2y ago
    That doesn't seem reasonable, doubly so when Trump wasn't exactly a disaster that emerged in seconds, he was elected in November. If billions could be raised to rebuild Notre Dame almost overnight, surely this can find much more modest funding in weeks.
- kasperni 2y ago
  > when the reality seems to be that only the US was ever willing to do it, Americans have been brainwashed to believe that they are solely funding the rest of the world. Lots of countries provide a lot more per capita than the US [1] in foreign aid. Someone like Germany provide 3x, Sweden 6x. So even the pre-Trump level wasn't something to be particular proud of. [1] https://www.wristband.com/content/which-countries-provide-receive-most-foreign-aid?srsltid=AfmBOorrI8VbPIYHLD1vdTDY3oVeyI12016cBQtxtXtGz6OCG9LCUkzv https://www.wristband.com/content/which-countries-provide-re...
  - EA-3167 2y ago
    I'm not really interested in "aid as a giving contest" and that's the only context in which per capita matters; otherwise the only measure that counts is absolute numbers, because that's what programs run on.
    - kasperni 2y ago
      Just as defence spending is measured as % of GDP for fairness, aid should be too. America's absolute dollar contributions look impressive until you consider its massive economy. And when you look at it as % of GDP, America's contribution was not impressive pre-Trump. And now even less.
      - EA-3167 2y ago
        It really feels like you're responding to thinks I didn't write. I didn't say that the US provides most aid, I didn't say that other countries aren't pulling their fair share. I'm saying that with Trump right now the US is unreliable and other countries have the money to fill the hole in this particular program. If anything what you're saying further supports the need to stop depending on an unreliable partner to provide funding for critical programs.

21 points by pmags 2y ago

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

It's undoubtedly a terrible thing to cut off funding for these commitments, but... the article makes it sound like DOOM is the forgone conclusion. We're talking about half a billion a year, the US is hardly the only entity on Earth capable of filling that gap. Why can't the EU step up a bit? Hell, why not BRICS if it comes to that? There's this sense that "only the US" can do it, when the reality seems to be that only the US was ever willing to do it, and without that willingness everyone is cooked.

throwworhtthrow 2y ago
The last paragraph of the article sums up why: > Piot is similarly gloomy. “If it were not so abrupt, countries could explore alternative funding, but not in a few weeks,” he says. As to UNAIDS, he adds, “I don’t see how it can survive.”
- EA-3167 2y ago
  That doesn't seem reasonable, doubly so when Trump wasn't exactly a disaster that emerged in seconds, he was elected in November. If billions could be raised to rebuild Notre Dame almost overnight, surely this can find much more modest funding in weeks.
kasperni 2y ago
> when the reality seems to be that only the US was ever willing to do it, Americans have been brainwashed to believe that they are solely funding the rest of the world. Lots of countries provide a lot more per capita than the US [1] in foreign aid. Someone like Germany provide 3x, Sweden 6x. So even the pre-Trump level wasn't something to be particular proud of. [1] https://www.wristband.com/content/which-countries-provide-receive-most-foreign-aid?srsltid=AfmBOorrI8VbPIYHLD1vdTDY3oVeyI12016cBQtxtXtGz6OCG9LCUkzv https://www.wristband.com/content/which-countries-provide-re...
- EA-3167 2y ago
  I'm not really interested in "aid as a giving contest" and that's the only context in which per capita matters; otherwise the only measure that counts is absolute numbers, because that's what programs run on.
  - kasperni 2y ago
    Just as defence spending is measured as % of GDP for fairness, aid should be too. America's absolute dollar contributions look impressive until you consider its massive economy. And when you look at it as % of GDP, America's contribution was not impressive pre-Trump. And now even less.
    - EA-3167 2y ago
      It really feels like you're responding to thinks I didn't write. I didn't say that the US provides most aid, I didn't say that other countries aren't pulling their fair share. I'm saying that with Trump right now the US is unreliable and other countries have the money to fill the hole in this particular program. If anything what you're saying further supports the need to stop depending on an unreliable partner to provide funding for critical programs.