Just watched a segment on @donlemon's @CNN show with @Emily_Baum of the @latimes. Some things happened. First, the story is that the Trump administration shut down a research program called PREDICT, which apparently "examines the intersection of animals and humans in nature."...

So far so good. Sounds like a good idea. They send researchers out into the field to take samples of viruses in animals and try to identify new viruses that we haven't yet seen. Okay great. As Emily is describing the program, the @CNN chyron says...

"TRUMP ADMIN SHUT DOWN EARLY-WARNING PANDEMIC PROGRAM JUST TWO MONTHS BEFORE CORONAVIRUS SPREAD IN CHINA"

Fair enough. Sounds like a legit gripe. Emily then explains, over the chyron, that the administration didn't "gut" a permanent program - that this program operated...

...on a grant cycle, and that "they finished up the program and the grant wasn't renewed." So that's different. But even if it's "finished up," one would think we should keep a program like that going, right?

But then it got wacky.

Don asked Emily why the researchers she spoke with said closing the program was "incredibly short-sighted"? Her response was enlightening.

"The purpose of the program, as the title suggests, is to predict future pandemics. So with the little bit of funding that's...

...left - 2 million dollars out of 200 million dollars - that's being use to address this current pandemic, but it's not working toward identifying the next pathogen, the next one that will jump over into humans, and containing it. So a lot of researchers who were involved in...

...it say, 'You need to continue funding this kind of research so you can prevent these kinds of things on the front end rather than being very reactive when it finally lands in the human host.'"

Okay. Deep breath.

Hey PREDICT researchers. You spent 198 million dollars...

...on a program you say was specifically designed to PREDICT this EXACT pandemic situation by traveling the globe - you were even in Wuhan at the virus center - and collecting samples to identify new viruses that may transfer to humans. LIKE THIS ONE. One hundred and ninety...

...eight million American dollars. And now you're telling us that you've only got 2 million left to "address this current pandemic." The one you were paid 198 million dollars to PREDICT. And now that the government has decided not to award you another 200 million dollars to...

...spend on not finding the novel virus that's killing us and ruinng our economy despite operating in the very city from which that virus sprang - arguably the easiest and most warranted lay-up of a non-renewal decision in the history of government grant non-renewal decisions...

...you have the BALLS to tell us that the non-renewal of your grant is "short-sighted" because funding this program will "prevent these kind of things on the front end rather than being very reactive when it finally lands in the human host."

A couple things. First, holy shit...

...it's stuff like this that makes me want to throw things. Second - researchers, I'm going to state the obvious here. Funding the program DIDN'T prevent "these kind of things on the front end". It's right here. On the back end. We ARE being "very reactive" because it DID land...

...in the human host - you failed at preventing the very thing you're warning won't be prevented unless we give you another 200 million dollars to not prevent it.

Your program wasn't renewed because it was a now-demonstrable waste of money. It didn't work. Good decision.