Latest news with #MalariaConsortium
New York Times
21-05-2025
- Politics
- New York Times
Should I Retire if My Fellow Federal Employees Are Facing Layoffs?
I am a federal employee who is eligible for retirement. I have a job that is intellectually challenging, gives back to the public and is personally rewarding. As federal government employees in my department face potential layoffs, is it ethical for me to defer retirement? There would be no negative impact for me, and I am certain I would be offered other jobs because of my expertise. — Name Withheld You may believe that retiring would spare someone else from being laid off, but in reality, it's hard to know whether your departure would do so. Work-force reductions are typically complex, and the ripple effects of one departure are difficult to predict. There are, in the meantime, countless ways to help others without stepping away from work that you value. Just for example, it has been estimated that donating $3,000 — about $50 a week for a year — could save a life through organizations like the Malaria Consortium. (With the recent evisceration of our global health programs, private donations to effective charities are more vital than ever.) And your continued service has worth — to you and to the agency. The presence of someone skilled, experienced and committed to public service could strengthen the agency, at a time when the federal work force faces unprecedented strain. Staying can help stabilize the 'ship of state' — an important benefit in these turbulent times. A Bonus Question I work in a city agency in New York City. We are prepared for visits from ICE and have on hand multilingual 'red cards' that help people know and assert their rights if questioned by nonlocal authorities. I want to give them to workers I see regularly, like deli and delivery workers. Is it OK for me to hand these 'know your rights' cards to anyone I think might need them? — Name Withheld From the Ethicist: These cards, which the Immigrant Legal Resource Center makes available for download, detail universal protections if you're approached by an immigration agent, like refusing warrantless entry, consulting with a lawyer or asking if you're free to leave. In general, I see no reason not to distribute them to people you think might find them useful. But there are a few points to keep in mind. If you're sharing materials during work hours or in your official role, you'll want to verify your agency's guidelines about distributing resources. If you're acting privately, use your personal time and resources to keep these efforts separate from your job. Partnering with local community groups that already distribute these materials could increase your impact. Bear in mind too that giving the card to someone might imply that you think they're undocumented. Because there's no special way documented people look, making that assumption relies on stereotypes. So make sure that you're approaching workers thoughtfully, and in a quiet moment, so they don't feel singled out or uncomfortable. And make it clear that these cards enumerate rights that everyone has. Which doesn't mean these rights are always respected. Recent court rulings show that ICE officers sometimes ignore them. Asserting rights isn't a guaranteed shield. Still, reminding agents of the state that they have duties as well as powers is one of the ways we can try to reduce the risk of tyranny. Readers Respond Last week's question was from a reader who relies on Facebook for making plans around his hobby but disagrees with its parent company Meta's enabling of extremist rhetoric. He wrote: 'I do not use the social network much, except for everything around my hobby: social dancing. Within the dancing community, almost all event planning and communication is done via Facebook. So I am very dependent on both the main app and Messenger for this part of my life. With Meta's recent moves to endorse political extremism, hate speech and general nastiness, I am no longer comfortable supporting their business. . . . What is the ethical thing to do?' In his response, the Ethicist noted: 'Unless your departure is part of a larger movement, it won't affect Meta's behavior. And leaving might cut you off from people you care about — like your dance partners. Holding your nose and staying could be wiser. That doesn't mean soaking in the cesspool. You can tweak your settings and treat Facebook more like a group chat than a broadcast. In the end, Facebook isn't a neutral public square, but it's not a cartoon villain either. It's a business, shaped by incentives, feedback loops and pressure. If we want better platforms, we need to be clear not just about what we reject but also about the kind of digital world we'd like to see. . . . if people with different views are going to share the floor, we need to make sure there's room for everyone to move.' (Reread the full question and answer here.) ⬥ Enter the platform with purpose, go directly to the content you need and exit promptly. This kind of deliberate, minimal engagement reduces Meta's ability to monetize your attention, especially through ad impressions and data harvesting. It may seem small, but this behavior contributes to collective resistance. It demonstrates that our values matter — not just in word but in how we interact with the systems around us. — Shawnna ⬥ I have decided to stay on Facebook, to post my (strong) views regularly, in a way that's honest yet respectful, and to post news articles that bear reading. I have both Republican and Democrat friends, and I think they respect my right to speak out on issues that are important to me. I think that resigning and retreating from the public sphere just gives hate and fascism more room to flourish. — Dian ⬥ The Ethicist suggests that leaving Facebook will have no effect unless it is part of a larger movement. Well, where exactly does he think such a movement starts? Write your fellow group members to suggest that you sign up to a less toxic provider. I'm here to tell you that the pleasure of reading, connecting, sharing media and planning events is not Facebook's property. You shouldn't be, either. — Shayna ⬥ All large movements start with one person. If you think the world is a better place having the Zuckerbergs, Musks and Bezoses in it, then keep on supporting them. If you don't like the direction the world is going in because of Facebook, X and Amazon, then don't support them. Leaving Facebook, X and Amazon was one of the best things I have done for my mental health. It's easier than you think. The world can be a better place, and that starts one person at a time. — Teresa ⬥ I disagree that anyone should feel there is any level of social sacrifice to be made by deleting your account(s). As a former social media addict, I can attest to the benefit of cutting that cord. Almost immediately I found myself to be more intentional about fostering relationships in the nondigital world. While I agree that the political and moral misgivings of supporting such a company are valid, the most compelling reason to wean yourself off Meta's products is precisely the reason the inquirer is using to justify staying. Being rid of socials allows you to form more genuine connections and prioritize those who mean the most to you in real life. — Clay
Yahoo
10-03-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Experts alarmed as US abruptly halts life-saving support: 'The suddenness of this is huge'
U.S. funding for malaria aid and research is on hold, prompting concerns for public health. The United States has supplied around 40% of global funding for malaria aid and research, according to the Philippines-based news site As the Trump administration vows to pull out from international aid, experts are worried about the effect this could have on the fight against this life-threatening disease in Africa, where new variants and signs of drug and insecticide resistance have emerged. As a result of the funding cuts, the Malaria Consortium has already fired staff in Mozambique and halted a program in Asia that trained people to monitor and control mosquitoes. "The suddenness of this is huge," James Tibenderana, the organization's chief executive, told the news site. The World Health Organization estimates that malaria kills around 597,000 globally each year, with 95% of those occurring in Africa. Children under five years old account for 76% of deaths in the region. Meanwhile, malaria looks to become even more problematic. For one, the Asia-native Anopheles stephensi mosquito has started to spread across East Africa, reported. This species thrives in urban environments, putting an additional 126 million African people at risk for the disease, according to a 2020 study cited by the publication. In addition, an overheating planet is contributing to the expansion of malaria-carrying mosquitoes into new territories. For instance, one report found that malaria risk zones are expanding into higher elevations in the Ethiopian Highlands, a region of high-altitude plateaus and mountains reaching above 14,000 feet. In the face of funding cuts from the U.S., Tibenderana said he hopes that other governments and institutions, such as the World Bank, will step up. This could help public health advocates continue with important projects across the region such as the implementation of anti-mosquito bed nets that were estimated to have saved 25,000 lives in Burkina Faso, Benin, Côte d'Ivoire during a test period. Do you think misinformation is a major problem in America today? Definitely Only for some people Only with certain issues Not really Click your choice to see results and speak your mind. Meanwhile, scientists are exploring methods to help cull mosquito populations. For instance, one team found a way to infect male mosquitoes of one malaria-carrying species with a fungus that kills biting females soon after mating. Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
Yahoo
06-02-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
US aid cuts come at deadly moment for malaria control
The sudden freezing of US aid to malaria projects comes as deadly new variants are spreading in Africa and could have a devastating impact, the head of a major NGO told AFP. The US government has provided some 40 percent of the annual funding globally for control and research into a disease that causes more than 600,000 deaths from 250 million cases each year -- mostly in Africa. That funding, of up to $1 billion a year, is now frozen as part of President Donald Trump's plan to axe foreign aid. "We did try to anticipate in advance of this, but I think even our worst case scenarios have been surpassed," said James Tibenderana, chief executive of the London-based Malaria Consortium that runs projects around the world. The Malaria Consortium has already been forced to fire staff working on a programme in Mozambique and halt a programme in Asia training people to monitor and control mosquitoes. Only five percent of its funding comes from the US government, but Tibenderana said US cuts would hit the entire sector. "It's just so disruptive, so sudden," he said. He highlighted that it came at a moment when the first signs of drug- and insecticide-resistance had started to emerge. "The clock is ticking for drug resistance in Africa," he said. "The early signs of resistance to the artemisinin-based combination therapy medicine, which is the mainstay of treatment for malaria, are emerging." He pointed to reports from Eritrea, Ethiopia, South Sudan, Sudan and Uganda. US-funded organisations have been the major player in monitoring this emergence through genome-mapping and drug-effectiveness studies. Without them, it will be "hard to detect at the scale that was possible with US government funding", said Tibenderana. - 'Through the woodchipper' - It also comes as an invasive mosquito species from Asia -- Anopheles stephensi -- has started spreading in East Africa. It thrives in urban areas and is immune to insecticide, potentially putting an additional 126 million people in Africa's cities at risk of malaria, according to one 2020 study. "The invasion and spread of Anopheles stephensi has the potential to change the malaria landscape in Africa and reverse decades of progress we've made towards malaria control," Meera Venkatesan, who was then malaria division chief for USAID, told AFP in November. Her division has now been shuttered along with the rest of USAID by Trump, with his billionaire ally Elon Musk boasting this week that he had put the vast humanitarian agency "through the woodchipper". Funding cuts will hit supply chains, rural hospitals and programmes to buy the latest mosquito nets. They will force poor families into debt when they need to send their children to hospital, said Tibenderana. Children under five account for around 80 percent of malaria deaths in Africa, according to the World Health Organization. Tibenderana hoped other governments and institutions such as the World Bank will step in, though he knows resources are scarce. He compared the US funding freezing to the recent pandemic. "We have to respond as we did with the Covid-19 pandemic, where there was a threat and people stepped up," he said. "But the suddenness of this is huge." er/jxb/rsc
