That makes sense! My best guess is that this is an evolving situation many in the community are paying attention to but that those more in the weeds are part of larger, non-EA-specific discussion channels, given the scope of the entities involved and the larger global response. But I could be off the mark here. I base this largely on my own experience following this closely but not particularly having anything to say on e.g. the Forum about it.
I agree in this USAID case there are probably larger non EA specific discussion channels, although it would be nice if they’re was more public discourse here too—I suspect if this had happened 18 months ago there would have been more of a buzz on the forum about it.
I’m not sure there is another big forum outside of here in general though which hosts high quality active global health EA bent discussions, unless I’m missing something.
Assuming there’s effective political stuff to be done with respect to the USAID situation (which is uncertain to me), it’s plausible that any hint of EA involvement would be affirmatively counterproductive. Better to have more politically popular entities—and entities not predominately funded by a guy who gave megabucks to the current officeholder’s rivals—in the lead for this one. If, for instance, EAs wanted to funnel money to any such entities, I suspect it would be savvy to do so quietly rather than talking about it on-Forum. It’s possible that is playing a role in the lack of discussion here, although I too suspect this would have gotten more attention ~18 months ago.
Oh my apologies I don’t mean downvoting sorry just engagement in general. The raid response fund has 90 upvotes yes but zero replies.
That makes sense! My best guess is that this is an evolving situation many in the community are paying attention to but that those more in the weeds are part of larger, non-EA-specific discussion channels, given the scope of the entities involved and the larger global response. But I could be off the mark here. I base this largely on my own experience following this closely but not particularly having anything to say on e.g. the Forum about it.
I agree in this USAID case there are probably larger non EA specific discussion channels, although it would be nice if they’re was more public discourse here too—I suspect if this had happened 18 months ago there would have been more of a buzz on the forum about it.
I’m not sure there is another big forum outside of here in general though which hosts high quality active global health EA bent discussions, unless I’m missing something.
Assuming there’s effective political stuff to be done with respect to the USAID situation (which is uncertain to me), it’s plausible that any hint of EA involvement would be affirmatively counterproductive. Better to have more politically popular entities—and entities not predominately funded by a guy who gave megabucks to the current officeholder’s rivals—in the lead for this one. If, for instance, EAs wanted to funnel money to any such entities, I suspect it would be savvy to do so quietly rather than talking about it on-Forum. It’s possible that is playing a role in the lack of discussion here, although I too suspect this would have gotten more attention ~18 months ago.