ls Cutting UK Overseas Aid Sensible?

The recent cut in the UK's Overseas Aid Budget from 0.7 to 0.5% of GDP has been largely presented as a necessary saving for this country. People are easily convinced by arguments about the need to conserve money for home-based problems ('Charity begins at home'). Matthew Baylis, however, suggests that this is somewhat shortsighted. He feels we should know differently, especially at a time when the country is ravaged by the Covid-19 pandemic (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/dec/02/cutting-uk-overseas-aid-pandemics-pathogens-zoonotic-covid-ebola-sars). He points to the One Health approach (with which he is involved), noting that pandemics (as we have recently seen) take no account of national borders. This approach shares responsibility across biological, environmental, social sciences and veterinary medicine. One focus is zoonotic diseases (ones that make the leap from animals to infecting humans). Covid-19 is a zoonosis (we got it from bats) but Ebola (probably also from bats), Mers (from camels) and Sars (from small mammals) are also examples of viruses we have acquired from animals. Baylis argues that UK overseas aid has been used to monitor disease outbreaks and to train workers in their countries of origin. Aid has also been used to study vaccine development (something that clearly benefited the search for a vaccine for Sars-CoV-2). Baylis points to the probability that there are many more zoonoses out there, with the potential to become pandemics. He, consequently, points out that the Overseas Aid Budget can (and does) benefit human health in the UK. Cuts may well reduce these benefits.