What we’re reading: When the difference between words and actions on global infectious disease control hits home

By on .

The State Department mismatch on global health rhetoric and reality –  Former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson brought in, or left in place strong proponents of global infectious disease responses, including continuing U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator Amb. Deborah Birx and USAID Administrator Mark Green, this analysis notes, but also notes that White House policies and funding cuts leave them little to work with, and indicates that while the administration may voice encouraging sentiments on global health responses, the disconnect between words and actions is likely to continue.

Haley: Vote With U.S. at U.N. or We’ll Cut Your AID – Case in point, the “America First Foreign Assistance Policy” memo reviewed by Foreign Policy here, follows up on an administration call to “ensure American foreign-assistance dollars always serve American interests and only go to America’s friends,” a call inherently at odds with itself. As the next article spells out, the us-against-them in global infectious disease responses doesn’t pit one country against another, but all countries’ health, technology and training capacities against the invisible, but common, enemy of pathogens with pandemic-potential.

Disease X Is What May Become the Biggest Infectious Threat to Our World – Case in point again — likelier than an alien invasion, scarier than a disillusioned generation approaching middle age, Disease X is on the World Health Organization’s list of global public health threats, anonymously ready to spring itself on an unready world.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.