> sure there's a parable about teaching someone to fish rather than feeding them

This is less about feeding a neighbor than digging them a latrine so they stop crapping in your water supply.

USAID provided funding for a lot of stuff, but specifically with regards to infectious disease control, providing funding for infectious disease control in countries that don't have the resources or priorities to do it on their own addresses the risk that such diseases are not controlled and spread to the US and also the risk that such diseases spread and result in (negative) economic impact for the US.

The disease control interventions really are a mix of teaching and doing. In acute situations, experts are brought in to do (some of) the things. But mostly it's training and outreach and supplying equipment to do routine disease control and surveillance of issues that need help.

theres also one about pennywise, pound foolish

If them not fishing means your people are at risk, you go and teach them to fish.

> how about countries with these risks take action to reduce these risks

With what money? There's a reason they're dependent on USAID.

> I'm sure there's a parable about teaching someone to fish rather than feeding them

Unfortunately the priorities of USAID (and European foreign aid as well) aren't exactly aligned with that paradigm. It's the worst expressed in agriculture because we just dumped our excess production on Africa to keep our prices stable, but foreign aid being sustainable is a relatively new and not really widespread requirement.

How callously you blame the victims. Remember your humanity.

[flagged]