(02-28-2020 11:23 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  And it isn't a non-sequitur to comment that the reduction in funding of EPIDEMIC PREVENTION of all things, in the country where this virus originated could have been a net negative. I'm not sure what their exact activities were, but I'm guessing they dealt with preventing epidemics to attempt to keep them from become pandemics. But I guess the CDC could have completed misrepresented what their action groups did...

OK, I have a question. When a department is faced with budget cuts, why do you suppose that the first places they cut are in the field, and in particular field positions with particular potential for catastrophe? Why not instead fire a bunch of six-figure bureaucrats who drive LMDs (Navy term, large metal desks) around DC and who actually do nothing except shuffle papers?

They could have fired a bunch of overpaid a-hole bureaucrats in Washington and saved far more. So why didn't they? Because those a-ole bureaucrats got to pick where the cuts came.

Quote:I think it's a perfectly valid argument to wonder what sort of impact the funding would have had, and if it would have been enough to slow or stop the epidemic. But to say it's a non-sequitur is a stretch.

The operative word is "wonder." We can wonder about lots of things. But wondering about something and proving it are far, far apart.