Most experts think that Ebola presents low risk to US so I am not sure why CDC should spend significant resources on it. Private company is working on vaccines and at current funding CDC is perfectly capable of handling a few cases of Ebola in US. Voiding visas of everyone who was in Liberia, Sierra Leone and other affected countries together with mandatory three week quarantine for few US citizens who was there is probably all that is needed to be done. Should not be too expensive.
CDC budget for 2014 is $6.8B so 25 million is drop in a bucket anyway.
Not sure this deserves the downvotes it's getting. Perhaps the statement is not perfectly accurate, but the fact is the CDC was decimated by the sequester, with more steep cuts on the plate for 2014 -- including emergency and disaster preparedness.
The Post office sells stamps, the courts charge fees, FCC sells radio space, don't know if the CDC has a source of extra income. Maybe that is why this foundation for private funds exist
Unclear. There's somethign to be said about asking people to put money where their mouth is to set some priorities, instead of voting for other people's tax payments.
There's also a corruption concern, of course, but I don't see that in today's case.
Call me "shameful, cynical [and] fearmongering" but I don't think the ineffectiveness of the CDC on Ebola is due to lack of resources or that $25 million will make a difference. They have a $6 billion plus annual budget ($25 million is a 0.4% increase) and rarely pay for the actual treatment of patients. Instead they are primarily supposed to do research and disseminate information in advance of health threats.
I think it is pretty clear the the CDC has become just another calcified government bureaucracy who ordinarily gets very little oversight or feedback from the outside world. As they recently admitted - just like the Houston nurse they blamed - they cannot even follow their own safety protocols (anthrax and H5N1 debacles) because of their toxic culture[1]. It is a real challenge (perhaps impossible) to prevent these problems from developing in any large organization - including private sector firm (think big semi-monopolies) but even more so in government. More money could even make it worse as bigger bureaucracies are even less effective - just like putting more programmers on the failing project.
I think it interesting that nobody here has asked the question why have Mark and Priscilla suddenly decided that they need to donate this amount of money? Has someone with inside knowledge of what is happening on the ground spoken to them?
In the US, we hear that government and process gets in the way of getting the funding needed to be prepared or respond to these types of emergencies. Somehow I feel that only 30-50 years ago, there was not so much red tape in the way (nor was there the ability for a sophisticated/organized response - so it cuts both ways).
I vacillate between thinking that just giving money will not make a huge difference here, and thinking that it's about all most of us can do that might help. I also thought that in this day and age, maybe we could do something like, a Kickstarter to fund a response to Ebola (so that the "people" can make an immediate impact), possibly to get the money to the CDC or other government (or non-government) organizations, with the expressly stated restricted use being defined in advance by a non-profit or NGO as being for the Ebola response. If money were truly the problem, it seems like we must be able to get money and fast.
It seems like money is definitely a part of the solution, but we also need those experts, heroes and volunteers who will put themselves in harm's way, with the proper tools/training/safety precautions to help. I don't know if money really helps with that aside from supporting those folks, which is definitely needed.
Certainly, funding for educational outreach to help prevent the spread of Ebola on multiple fronts is helpful.
We also need to make sure that the fundamental medical research/drug development is being funded and supported (for example, accelerated ZMapp/other drug development/testing/research and production, in conjunction with government support).
It's a catch-22, we all talk about how the drug manufacturers make fortunes on the licensing/patenting of drugs. At the same time, if we can help those who are suffering by getting those "fortunes" in the hands of the people who have the drugs or can make the drugs that are needed, then while we may not like it, if it helps then it's worth getting those funds in place. I am aware of policies for compassionate use and pre-FDA approval, special relationships between government and private industry, where sometimes they can get the drugs needed without much trouble and they are often donated by the drug manufacturers (as I believe was the case with ZMapp).
In any case, it certainly is a complex challenge and I am glad to see people trying to make a difference. I yearn for simplification here with regards to such issues.
As a former contractor for USAID I can definitely testify to the increase in red tape. This is mostly in the form of congressional earmarks.
Many people don't realize that just "getting money out the door" is an incredibly difficult task when you have the burden of so much bureaucracy. Most of this bureaucracy is well intentioned (e.g. vetting partner organizations for terrorist or narcotics connections), but taken as a whole it is stifling.
In fact, the USAID Mission in Kenya (USAID's largest in Africa) turned down increased funding in 2012 because they simply had too much cash and not enough staff to obligate it to organizations on time.
This ends up creating a heavily calcified aid "system" where older organizations with the ability to cope with legal/bureaucratic issues are the only ones who can survive. The average wait-time for a USAID payment is something around 9 months, so small start-up organizations are de-facto ineligible if they need immediate funding.
Obviously this is just anecdotal. However, the ultimate result that I have observed is that aid typically gets distributed to organizations (contractors) who are heavily entrenched and will generally take around a 50% overhead fee.
USAID has attempted to alleviate this problem through the USAID Forward initiative (which requires Missions to have a certain percentage of "locally owned" organizations ). However, once again entrenched aid contractors are best suited to jump through bureaucratic loopholes. For example, by incorporating country-based subsidiaries in locations where they are pursuing contracts.
Just my own take on why money isn't always the problem when it comes to assisting developing countries.
possibly to get the money to the CDC or government organizations, with the expressly stated restricted use being defined in advance by a non-profit or NGO as being for the Ebola response
This attitude - "I gave you money to help x, I only want it to be used on x" is part of the problem. In order for relief agencies to be prepared for the next problem, they need resources on hand that don't have strings attached. But such agencies have learned that if they do this - take money donated at the time of one crisis, and keep it on hand to help with the next crisis - people will be upset.
I'm confused, why is this voted down? I was genuinely hoping to see what others thought about giving money and/or other alternatives? I personally feel I am not doing enough to help and not happy seeing people suffering from this disease (and many other things) in any country.
I myself want to help make a positive difference and am trying to figure out what else can be done beyond just donating to help (or whether rallying donations is really helpful) - especially in this specific case.
EDIT: I was in no way trying to downplay the kindness of the donation by Zuckerberg and his wife - if anything I was trying to understand what more can be done (or what more money can be raised).
I know Zuckerberg is rich from creating Facebook, but where did Chan find her stash of money? Or are they donating Mark's money but using both people names? Asking out of curiosity, not trying to make some dumb point.
The indignation of the form of your question is remarkable.
But to answer your question: It's probably funneled through their foundation, which they would, of course, name and manage together. Because, ya know, they're married.
The HN is headline is inaccurate. Zuck wrote "Priscilla and I", because "I and Priscilla" is ungramattical in American language/culture, and "I" is... uncouth.
Changing the headline's speaker from Zuck to "anonymous HN software" changes the meaning.
[+] [-] throwaway5752|11 years ago|reply
That said, hat's off to Zuckerberg. His reaction sharply contrasts with so much of the shameful, cynical fearmongering from some quarters.
[+] [-] smm2000|11 years ago|reply
CDC budget for 2014 is $6.8B so 25 million is drop in a bucket anyway.
[+] [-] bluedevil2k|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gdubs|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wehadfun|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aaronbrethorst|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gohrt|11 years ago|reply
There's also a corruption concern, of course, but I don't see that in today's case.
[+] [-] spikels|11 years ago|reply
I think it is pretty clear the the CDC has become just another calcified government bureaucracy who ordinarily gets very little oversight or feedback from the outside world. As they recently admitted - just like the Houston nurse they blamed - they cannot even follow their own safety protocols (anthrax and H5N1 debacles) because of their toxic culture[1]. It is a real challenge (perhaps impossible) to prevent these problems from developing in any large organization - including private sector firm (think big semi-monopolies) but even more so in government. More money could even make it worse as bigger bureaucracies are even less effective - just like putting more programmers on the failing project.
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/14/us/after-lapses-cdc-admits...
[+] [-] georgiecasey|11 years ago|reply
Is it hats off or hat's off? I think you're right. The saying is 'my hat is off to you'
[+] [-] chongli|11 years ago|reply
Billionaires don't pay taxes, they lend money to the government. This is the system the billionaires created for us.
[+] [-] danieltillett|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gohrt|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dreamweapon|11 years ago|reply
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8454885
[+] [-] avidwriter|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sixdimensional|11 years ago|reply
I vacillate between thinking that just giving money will not make a huge difference here, and thinking that it's about all most of us can do that might help. I also thought that in this day and age, maybe we could do something like, a Kickstarter to fund a response to Ebola (so that the "people" can make an immediate impact), possibly to get the money to the CDC or other government (or non-government) organizations, with the expressly stated restricted use being defined in advance by a non-profit or NGO as being for the Ebola response. If money were truly the problem, it seems like we must be able to get money and fast.
It seems like money is definitely a part of the solution, but we also need those experts, heroes and volunteers who will put themselves in harm's way, with the proper tools/training/safety precautions to help. I don't know if money really helps with that aside from supporting those folks, which is definitely needed.
Certainly, funding for educational outreach to help prevent the spread of Ebola on multiple fronts is helpful.
We also need to make sure that the fundamental medical research/drug development is being funded and supported (for example, accelerated ZMapp/other drug development/testing/research and production, in conjunction with government support).
It's a catch-22, we all talk about how the drug manufacturers make fortunes on the licensing/patenting of drugs. At the same time, if we can help those who are suffering by getting those "fortunes" in the hands of the people who have the drugs or can make the drugs that are needed, then while we may not like it, if it helps then it's worth getting those funds in place. I am aware of policies for compassionate use and pre-FDA approval, special relationships between government and private industry, where sometimes they can get the drugs needed without much trouble and they are often donated by the drug manufacturers (as I believe was the case with ZMapp).
In any case, it certainly is a complex challenge and I am glad to see people trying to make a difference. I yearn for simplification here with regards to such issues.
[+] [-] csharpminor|11 years ago|reply
Many people don't realize that just "getting money out the door" is an incredibly difficult task when you have the burden of so much bureaucracy. Most of this bureaucracy is well intentioned (e.g. vetting partner organizations for terrorist or narcotics connections), but taken as a whole it is stifling.
In fact, the USAID Mission in Kenya (USAID's largest in Africa) turned down increased funding in 2012 because they simply had too much cash and not enough staff to obligate it to organizations on time.
This ends up creating a heavily calcified aid "system" where older organizations with the ability to cope with legal/bureaucratic issues are the only ones who can survive. The average wait-time for a USAID payment is something around 9 months, so small start-up organizations are de-facto ineligible if they need immediate funding.
Obviously this is just anecdotal. However, the ultimate result that I have observed is that aid typically gets distributed to organizations (contractors) who are heavily entrenched and will generally take around a 50% overhead fee.
USAID has attempted to alleviate this problem through the USAID Forward initiative (which requires Missions to have a certain percentage of "locally owned" organizations ). However, once again entrenched aid contractors are best suited to jump through bureaucratic loopholes. For example, by incorporating country-based subsidiaries in locations where they are pursuing contracts.
Just my own take on why money isn't always the problem when it comes to assisting developing countries.
[+] [-] scott_s|11 years ago|reply
This attitude - "I gave you money to help x, I only want it to be used on x" is part of the problem. In order for relief agencies to be prepared for the next problem, they need resources on hand that don't have strings attached. But such agencies have learned that if they do this - take money donated at the time of one crisis, and keep it on hand to help with the next crisis - people will be upset.
Planet Money explains this well: http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2014/09/26/351515481/episode-...
[+] [-] spindritf|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sixdimensional|11 years ago|reply
I myself want to help make a positive difference and am trying to figure out what else can be done beyond just donating to help (or whether rallying donations is really helpful) - especially in this specific case.
EDIT: I was in no way trying to downplay the kindness of the donation by Zuckerberg and his wife - if anything I was trying to understand what more can be done (or what more money can be raised).
[+] [-] ISL|11 years ago|reply
It's a lot easier to be a hero when you've got the tools to be heroic.
[+] [-] aaronbrethorst|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] imjk|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] plg|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fdsary|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] autechr3|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jvagner|11 years ago|reply
The indignation of the form of your question is remarkable.
But to answer your question: It's probably funneled through their foundation, which they would, of course, name and manage together. Because, ya know, they're married.
[+] [-] gohrt|11 years ago|reply
Changing the headline's speaker from Zuck to "anonymous HN software" changes the meaning.