>The Lancet, looking at the impact U.S.A.I.D. had over the past twenty years —saving ninety-two million lives…
If you look at a graph of the world–wide death rate over the last few decades, you’ll see that it’s been going down pretty consistently. If you assume, rather charitably, that the death rate would have been flat if USAID had not existed, then you can count the number of people “saved” over the last 20 years. You’ll get a number like 70 million! This study is trying to tell us that not only did USAID single–handedly save 70 million lives, it brought even more millions back to life!
This study is extremely bogus. Anything you conclude from it will be nonsense. The whole article is nonsense for innumerate people.
If you save a child from malaria but they die in a civil war a few years later you have saved one life (Temporarily) but had very little impact on the death rate. Using changes in death rates to gauge the actual number of "lives saved" from preventable illness is going to be fraught with confounding factors.
USAID certainly had a massive impact in mitigating death from starvation and illness. They also did a great deal in spreading goodwill for the USA among nations that would otherwise have only seen us as only a shadowy menace thousands of miles away.
> Using changes in death rates to gauge the actual number of "lives saved" from preventable illness is going to be fraught with confounding factors.
I agree but I was going for an upper bound not an exact figure. This is just a comment field on HN, after all, not a real publication. I think it’s obvious that USAID did not save 90 million lives. The programs it funded probably didn’t even interact with 90 million people in any way.
> They also did a great deal in spreading goodwill for the USA
They also funded trans–gender clinics, anti–government revolutionaries, protest movements, pro–Democrat magazines in the US, and a bunch of other nonsense. A lot of it was about destabilizing other people’s economies, not helping them out or getting them to like us. If you want to fund those things with your own money then I won’t stop you, but taking money away from everybody to pay for them is not worthwhile.
4 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 16.3 ms ] threadIf you look at a graph of the world–wide death rate over the last few decades, you’ll see that it’s been going down pretty consistently. If you assume, rather charitably, that the death rate would have been flat if USAID had not existed, then you can count the number of people “saved” over the last 20 years. You’ll get a number like 70 million! This study is trying to tell us that not only did USAID single–handedly save 70 million lives, it brought even more millions back to life!
This study is extremely bogus. Anything you conclude from it will be nonsense. The whole article is nonsense for innumerate people.
USAID certainly had a massive impact in mitigating death from starvation and illness. They also did a great deal in spreading goodwill for the USA among nations that would otherwise have only seen us as only a shadowy menace thousands of miles away.
I agree but I was going for an upper bound not an exact figure. This is just a comment field on HN, after all, not a real publication. I think it’s obvious that USAID did not save 90 million lives. The programs it funded probably didn’t even interact with 90 million people in any way.
> They also did a great deal in spreading goodwill for the USA
They also funded trans–gender clinics, anti–government revolutionaries, protest movements, pro–Democrat magazines in the US, and a bunch of other nonsense. A lot of it was about destabilizing other people’s economies, not helping them out or getting them to like us. If you want to fund those things with your own money then I won’t stop you, but taking money away from everybody to pay for them is not worthwhile.