Priscilla Chan and Mark Zuckerberg Donating $25M to the CDC Foundation(facebook.com)
facebook.com
Priscilla Chan and Mark Zuckerberg Donating $25M to the CDC Foundation
https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10101696761533081
8 comments
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.
CDC budget for 2014 is $6.8B so 25 million is drop in a bucket anyway.
This donation was made to the CDC Foundation, not the CDC. The CDC Foundation does most of its work outside of the United States.
Zuckerberg's donation is meant to help reduce the novel growth rate seen with 2014 West Africa Ebola. We have little experience with Ebola in urban areas. We're currently seeing a doubling of case rates nearly within the the Ebola generation time of 16 or so days. If that reproductive rate is not slowed quickly, in the next few months, then one possible outcome is that Ebola will never go away, and will exist as yet another terrible disease afflicting the poor.
Moreover, imagine if we could eliminate a disease like malaria for a few billion dollars. The cost-benefit of that would be astounding. It makes sense to try and eliminate Ebola now, not just prevent it from reaching the US.
Zuckerberg's donation is meant to help reduce the novel growth rate seen with 2014 West Africa Ebola. We have little experience with Ebola in urban areas. We're currently seeing a doubling of case rates nearly within the the Ebola generation time of 16 or so days. If that reproductive rate is not slowed quickly, in the next few months, then one possible outcome is that Ebola will never go away, and will exist as yet another terrible disease afflicting the poor.
Moreover, imagine if we could eliminate a disease like malaria for a few billion dollars. The cost-benefit of that would be astounding. It makes sense to try and eliminate Ebola now, not just prevent it from reaching the US.
Besides humanitarian reasons?
How about this: the risk model for ebola is based on limited empirical data from past strains. The current outbreak already exceeds past outbreaks. If the virus is different than the past, or it mutates, then the model from which we assess that the risk is low could be wrong.
So helping to end the outbreak, for one, would cutoff many, many opportunities for ebola to mutate into something even worse.
How about this: the risk model for ebola is based on limited empirical data from past strains. The current outbreak already exceeds past outbreaks. If the virus is different than the past, or it mutates, then the model from which we assess that the risk is low could be wrong.
So helping to end the outbreak, for one, would cutoff many, many opportunities for ebola to mutate into something even worse.
CDC budget for 2014 is $6.8B so 25 million is drop in a bucket anyway.
And the budget for the department tasked with responding to the Ebola crisis is how much?
And the budget for the department tasked with responding to the Ebola crisis is how much?
CDC should be able to re-allocate budget on a short notice - I am sure there are contingency plans for it. On CDC website they list priorities - Food Safety, Healthcare-associated, Infections, HIV in the U.S.,Motor Vehicle Injuries, Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Obesity, Teen Pregnancy, Tobacco. I am sure they can cut 1% from these programs - none of them is any kind of emergency.
If there was a risk of Ebola reaching African proportion in US, I am sure there are emergency funds to bolster up CDC. But currently there is no such risk and realistically there is no good way to spend significant amount of money in US on Ebola.
If there was a risk of Ebola reaching African proportion in US, I am sure there are emergency funds to bolster up CDC. But currently there is no such risk and realistically there is no good way to spend significant amount of money in US on Ebola.
NO aspect of the US government is fully funded from tax receipts - that's why we issue so much debt and run such a deficit every year.
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
There's an opportunity to do something about it coming up in just a couple weeks. First Tuesday in November, to be precise.
Voting is how we got the current government. Choosing between two lying, corrupt politicians won't change anything.
We need to replace Congress with 1 house made up of 1,000 randomly sampled citizens to get true representation.
We need to replace Congress with 1 house made up of 1,000 randomly sampled citizens to get true representation.
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.
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.
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/14/us/after-lapses-cdc-admits...
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...
I don't get it. There's 1 domestically transmitted case of Ebola. There are ~200 new cases of leprosy per year. How much more effective do you want them to be?
And sticker shock aside, $6B is less that any annual super-pharma R&D budget that I was able to find in a brief search (Merck, Pfizer, GSK). And that is just R&D, not even SG&A.
edit: look, they can fit all domestic rabies cases in a small table on a single page: http://www.cdc.gov/rabies/location/usa/surveillance/human_ra... The CDC is a bunch of miracle workers, in partnership with medical and pharmaceutical advances. Does anyone recall that no less than 100 years ago the US has a president that was partially paralyzed by a disease that afflicted 20K/yr that is now domestically eradicated?
And sticker shock aside, $6B is less that any annual super-pharma R&D budget that I was able to find in a brief search (Merck, Pfizer, GSK). And that is just R&D, not even SG&A.
edit: look, they can fit all domestic rabies cases in a small table on a single page: http://www.cdc.gov/rabies/location/usa/surveillance/human_ra... The CDC is a bunch of miracle workers, in partnership with medical and pharmaceutical advances. Does anyone recall that no less than 100 years ago the US has a president that was partially paralyzed by a disease that afflicted 20K/yr that is now domestically eradicated?
Make that 2 domestically transmitted cases of Ebola.
http://online.wsj.com/articles/ebola-found-in-second-healthc...
http://online.wsj.com/articles/ebola-found-in-second-healthc...
They have a $6 billion plus annual budget ($25 million is a 0.4% increase).
That's why the Zucks made what's called a "targeted donation." Just because an agency has a budge for $X.y billion doesn't mean they can slosh it around to overloaded departments at the drop of a hat.
Or are you proposing that the CDC just lay off half of the Atlanta office, and devote those resources to Ebola prevention?
That's why the Zucks made what's called a "targeted donation." Just because an agency has a budge for $X.y billion doesn't mean they can slosh it around to overloaded departments at the drop of a hat.
Or are you proposing that the CDC just lay off half of the Atlanta office, and devote those resources to Ebola prevention?
> hat's off to Zuckerberg
Is it hats off or hat's off? I think you're right. The saying is 'my hat is off to you'
Is it hats off or hat's off? I think you're right. The saying is 'my hat is off to you'
I always understood the version with no apostrophe as a general imperative statement, with 'hats' being plural - not an abbreviation of 'my hat's off' but of 'we should take our hats off'.
Either makes sense.
Either makes sense.
It's pathetic that a government agency is beholden to charity from billionaires instead of being fully funded from tax receipts. What a debacle.
Billionaires don't pay taxes, they lend money to the government. This is the system the billionaires created for us.
Billionaires don't pay taxes, they lend money to the government. This is the system the billionaires created for us.
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?
Have you read the front page of the news recently?
For extra fun, compare and contrast with his simultaneous $100M purchase of a 700-acre waterfront estate in Kauai:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8454885
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8454885
It's official, we're back in the robber-baron age
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.
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.
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.
Planet Money explains this well: http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2014/09/26/351515481/episode-...
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-...
That makes sense, I hadn't thought of it that way. I guess the degree to which people donate to such agencies without restriction is related to how much trust is involved for that agency. Thank you for sharing the link with the podcast.
To be honest, I hadn't realized that the CDC had a foundation until I saw this today and had been wondering about how to be able to direct funds to them specifically (I did definitely know about other relief agencies, such as Doctors without Borders).
I had been specifically wondering about the interplay of the newer crowdfunding models (like Kickstarter or even Watsi) and traditional donation models here, and whether there were new/different opportunities for rapid response methods to approach this kind of challenge (and how one might go about it).
To be honest, I hadn't realized that the CDC had a foundation until I saw this today and had been wondering about how to be able to direct funds to them specifically (I did definitely know about other relief agencies, such as Doctors without Borders).
I had been specifically wondering about the interplay of the newer crowdfunding models (like Kickstarter or even Watsi) and traditional donation models here, and whether there were new/different opportunities for rapid response methods to approach this kind of challenge (and how one might go about it).
Fifty years ago there would be a quarantine, no travellers from Africa, and no response necessary.
There was a flu pandemic in 1957, for which I can't find any evidence that the United States initiated a quarantine or blocked travelers from Asia. So, I'd love to know why you think there would've been a quarantine 50 years ago. Would it have been in response to the flu pandemic 7 years before?
That pandemic killed an estimated 69,800 Americans. It's simply not in the same class as this Ebola outbreak, and as an airborne disease (infects the upper respiratory tract) that's easily transmitted a quarantine would have been much less practical.
That was also a period when we had a bunch of new antibiotics available to help with secondary infections, which are frequently the biggest problem with influenza.
That was also a period when we had a bunch of new antibiotics available to help with secondary infections, which are frequently the biggest problem with influenza.
Fifty years ago, not many people would have cared if travel was cut off. The world is a different place now and countries (continents?) are not as isolated as they are now. You can't get away with blank travel bans any more because it would cause a huge disruption for a lot of people.
There's a good argument out there that a quarantine just makes the situation worse -- more friction for aid organizations to do their work, for one thing.
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 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'm confused, why is this voted down?
Downvotes on HN, especially for new posts, correlate basically not at all with post quality. That's what happens when a brigade of grumpy assholes make it their mission to read the first word of every sentence in a post and then vote based on whether they feel you wasted their time or not.
We're worse than Reddit in this regard so don't worry about it too much.
Downvotes on HN, especially for new posts, correlate basically not at all with post quality. That's what happens when a brigade of grumpy assholes make it their mission to read the first word of every sentence in a post and then vote based on whether they feel you wasted their time or not.
We're worse than Reddit in this regard so don't worry about it too much.
Giving money is a great way to put greater resources into the skilled hands of those who can make use of them.
It's a lot easier to be a hero when you've got the tools to be heroic.
It's a lot easier to be a hero when you've got the tools to be heroic.
[deleted]
The CDC is a government organization. It's part of HHS.
Yes, of course. That is why supporting them in any way we can as citizens (beyond what we normally might do) is something I think we should consider.
The reason I worded it the way I did was that I was trying not to be exclusive to government in the US only and instead be inclusive of other governments and organizations (such as Doctors Without Borders), etc.
The reason I worded it the way I did was that I was trying not to be exclusive to government in the US only and instead be inclusive of other governments and organizations (such as Doctors Without Borders), etc.
Not that this takes away anything from this generous philanthropic gesture, but this happens to coincide with Zuckerberg's recent purchase of a large portion of a Hawaiian island that certain reports say cost more than $100MM: http://mashable.com/2014/09/29/zuckerberg-hawaii/
http://www.businessinsider.com/mark-zuckerberg-buys-700-acre...
I'd like to see them donate to the EFF
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.
When you are married, all of your spouses money is your money (unless you agree it isnt).
It's not quite that simple. California, where they live, is a "community property" state[1]. This means that anything earned while married is community property - owned 50/50 by both people. On the other hand anything you had before marriage (or inherited) is "separate property" - owned 100% that person.
Due to these rules the fact they were married after - one day after! - the IPO could make a big difference if they were to ever divorce[2]. Of course, like almost every very wealthy person, they likely have a prenuptial agreement which should establish exactly who owns what.
[1] http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_property
[2] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/21/us-facebook-prenup...
Due to these rules the fact they were married after - one day after! - the IPO could make a big difference if they were to ever divorce[2]. Of course, like almost every very wealthy person, they likely have a prenuptial agreement which should establish exactly who owns what.
[1] http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_property
[2] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/21/us-facebook-prenup...
"but where did Chan find her stash of money"
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 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.
Changing the headline's speaker from Zuck to "anonymous HN software" changes the meaning.
That said, hat's off to Zuckerberg. His reaction sharply contrasts with so much of the shameful, cynical fearmongering from some quarters.