3 ms·

Headline from March of last year: Bird flu, screwworm monitoring among foreign aid programs killed by Trump See: https://www.agri-pulse.com/articles/22636-bir

by atoav 4mo ago

Headline from March of last year: Bird flu, screwworm monitoring among foreign aid programs killed by Trump See: https://www.agri-pulse.com/articles/22636-bird-flu-screwworm-monitoring-among-foreign-aid-programs-killed-by-trump https://www.agri-pulse.com/articles/22636-bird-flu-screwworm... Elect stupid leaders, get stupid consequences.

timr 4mo ago
As the article you've linked to makes clear, this problem predates the cut in funding.
- mittensc 4mo ago
  it is the admin responsibility to protect its citizens. has it done anything to prevent/mitigate this? or the opposite?
- jurgenburgen 4mo ago
  Oh great, then the next admin can blame this one when the problem is still around. Why solve a problem when you can just blame the other guys.
  - deleted 4mo ago
    [deleted]
  - timr 4mo ago
    The current administration is funding an increase in response: https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/nws-visit-policy-brief.pdf https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/nws-visit... It's right there, linked in TFA. The press release provided by the GP is instead discussing funding for the "UN Food and Agriculture Organization", which is different. Apparently they also do some unspecified amount of work on the issue.
    - brendoelfrendo 4mo ago
      That aid money went, in part, to preventing the spread of screwworms in Central America. As of 2024, the flies were mostly eradicated in Mexico and efforts were on-going in Panama to wipe them out down to the Darien Gap. In less than 2 years we've gone from them being almost entirely eradicated in North America to infections observed in the United States.
      - timr 4mo ago
        It didn’t happen in less than 2 years. The problem started at least in 2020, and likely long before that.
- maeglin 4mo ago
  I'm not sure what your point is here. Yes, the screwworm problem predates the funding cut. Surely that should prompt an increase or at least a maintenance of existing funding for monitoring programs though, certainly not a decrease. I think atoav is saying the /stupid consequence/ is the cut in funding itself, not the screwworm resurgence.
  - deleted 4mo ago
    [deleted]
  - timr 4mo ago
    > I'm not sure what your point is here. My point is that the instinct to be partisan on this issue is inane, but also factually incorrect. > Yes, the screwworm problem predates the funding cut. Great, so we're agreed that this is at least a bi-partisan problem. > Surely that should prompt an increase or at least a maintenance of existing funding for monitoring programs though, certainly not a decrease. Fortunately, it is. This was linked directly from TFA: https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/nws-visit-policy-brief.pdf https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/nws-visit...
    - sanktanglia 4mo ago
      Screw worms existing before Trump doesn't make it a bipartisan issue. Trump cut the funding, did Democrats do too? So then no only one party ignored and actively defunded it, making it exactly a partisan issue. Good job trying to cover for trump, it's extra pathetic here
    - jmward01 4mo ago
      A problem happening eventually is expected. The point of a good program is a layered approach that admits no layer is perfect so you have backups that kick in to minimize the impact of problems. So the problem was emerging in 2022, not great but not a tragedy. Cutting monitoring means we reacted slower and our inability to play with our neighbors well means that we can't coordinate a response quickly or as effectively. Destroying our layered, nuanced policies has real consequences and this is one of them.
    - 4mo ago
- biophysboy 4mo ago
  The argument is not that cutting funding caused the problem; the argument is that you have to use money to solve the problem.
  - timr 4mo ago
    …and the current administration is using money to do that. It’s in the article, and I’ve posted links to evidence on multiple sub threads of this thread, which you had to ignore to make this comment. Y’all are just absolutely fixated on blaming one side for this.
    - biophysboy 4mo ago
      Two things can be true at once: one group cut funding early 2025, and another group added funding later. The former group, DOGE, was less responsible, and the latter group, USDA, is more responsible. I do not know why I have to ignore the former group to be fair to the latter.
      - timr 4mo ago
        The point is that you’re trying to blame post-2025 events for a problem that began years ago. Stop letting partisan politics dominate your thinking. It’s preventing you from seeing the full scope of the problem.
- deleted 4mo ago
  [deleted]
- fanatic2pope 4mo ago
  Umm, yes? The funding was put in place because of the problem.

by atoav 4mo ago

timr 4mo ago

As the article you've linked to makes clear, this problem predates the cut in funding.

mittensc 4mo ago
it is the admin responsibility to protect its citizens. has it done anything to prevent/mitigate this? or the opposite?
jurgenburgen 4mo ago
Oh great, then the next admin can blame this one when the problem is still around. Why solve a problem when you can just blame the other guys.
- deleted 4mo ago
  [deleted]
- timr 4mo ago
  The current administration is funding an increase in response: https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/nws-visit-policy-brief.pdf https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/nws-visit... It's right there, linked in TFA. The press release provided by the GP is instead discussing funding for the "UN Food and Agriculture Organization", which is different. Apparently they also do some unspecified amount of work on the issue.
  - brendoelfrendo 4mo ago
    That aid money went, in part, to preventing the spread of screwworms in Central America. As of 2024, the flies were mostly eradicated in Mexico and efforts were on-going in Panama to wipe them out down to the Darien Gap. In less than 2 years we've gone from them being almost entirely eradicated in North America to infections observed in the United States.
    - timr 4mo ago
      It didn’t happen in less than 2 years. The problem started at least in 2020, and likely long before that.
maeglin 4mo ago
I'm not sure what your point is here. Yes, the screwworm problem predates the funding cut. Surely that should prompt an increase or at least a maintenance of existing funding for monitoring programs though, certainly not a decrease. I think atoav is saying the /stupid consequence/ is the cut in funding itself, not the screwworm resurgence.
- deleted 4mo ago
  [deleted]
- timr 4mo ago
  > I'm not sure what your point is here. My point is that the instinct to be partisan on this issue is inane, but also factually incorrect. > Yes, the screwworm problem predates the funding cut. Great, so we're agreed that this is at least a bi-partisan problem. > Surely that should prompt an increase or at least a maintenance of existing funding for monitoring programs though, certainly not a decrease. Fortunately, it is. This was linked directly from TFA: https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/nws-visit-policy-brief.pdf https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/nws-visit...
  - sanktanglia 4mo ago
    Screw worms existing before Trump doesn't make it a bipartisan issue. Trump cut the funding, did Democrats do too? So then no only one party ignored and actively defunded it, making it exactly a partisan issue. Good job trying to cover for trump, it's extra pathetic here
  - jmward01 4mo ago
    A problem happening eventually is expected. The point of a good program is a layered approach that admits no layer is perfect so you have backups that kick in to minimize the impact of problems. So the problem was emerging in 2022, not great but not a tragedy. Cutting monitoring means we reacted slower and our inability to play with our neighbors well means that we can't coordinate a response quickly or as effectively. Destroying our layered, nuanced policies has real consequences and this is one of them.
  - 4mo ago
biophysboy 4mo ago
The argument is not that cutting funding caused the problem; the argument is that you have to use money to solve the problem.
- timr 4mo ago
  …and the current administration is using money to do that. It’s in the article, and I’ve posted links to evidence on multiple sub threads of this thread, which you had to ignore to make this comment. Y’all are just absolutely fixated on blaming one side for this.
  - biophysboy 4mo ago
    Two things can be true at once: one group cut funding early 2025, and another group added funding later. The former group, DOGE, was less responsible, and the latter group, USDA, is more responsible. I do not know why I have to ignore the former group to be fair to the latter.
    - timr 4mo ago
      The point is that you’re trying to blame post-2025 events for a problem that began years ago. Stop letting partisan politics dominate your thinking. It’s preventing you from seeing the full scope of the problem.
deleted 4mo ago
[deleted]
fanatic2pope 4mo ago
Umm, yes? The funding was put in place because of the problem.