Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by atoav | Hacker News Reader

Full thread

atoav

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...

Elect stupid leaders, get stupid consequences.

View on HN

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

it is the admin responsibility to protect its citizens.

has it done anything to prevent/mitigate this? or the opposite?

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.

The current administration is funding an increase in response:

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.

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.

It didn’t happen in less than 2 years. The problem started at least in 2020, and likely long before that.

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.

> 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...

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

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.

Pointing out legitimate failure of an administration is not partisan -- denying or deflecting that criticism is partisan. The current regime has slashed so many programs based on the flimsiest reasoning (including "my predecessor supported this so therefore I hate it").

I'm more than happy to acknowledge any failures by Dem leadership because I'm not a party member and even if I were I would not let that blind me to the reality of that failure.

An interesting aspect of speaking with republican family members is that they assume democrats are monolithic and will revert to that assumption once enough time has passed. Like, unable to process being told that nobody in the room watches CNN or likes the Clintons.

I think conservative's brains are wired differently, and there's studies that back that up. They tend to lack empathy, which implies they can't walk in other people's shoes so therefor their assumptions about others are based upon how they themselves think.

I don't write that to demean them, I'd like it if it wasn't so -- this comment is in no way intended to be deragotory.

That said, I think this substantiates the notion that with conservatives "every accusation is a confession", because they can only see the world through their eyes they assume everybody else thinks like them.

I'm of the mind that Rupert Murdoch just found the right way to shout at people who grew up in a certain environment.

The argument is not that cutting funding caused the problem; the argument is that you have to use money to solve the problem.

…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.

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.

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.

Umm, yes? The funding was put in place because of the problem.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com