
Priscilla Chan and Mark Zuckerberg Donating $25M to the CDC Foundation - geetee
https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10101696761533081
======
throwaway5752
It's pathetic that a government agency is beholden to charity from
billionaires instead of being fully funded from tax receipts. What a debacle.

That said, hat's off to Zuckerberg. His reaction sharply contrasts with so
much of the shameful, cynical fearmongering from some quarters.

~~~
smm2000
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.

~~~
dreamweapon
_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?

~~~
smm2000
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.

------
danieltillett
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?

~~~
gohrt
Have you read the front page of the news recently?

------
dreamweapon
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)

------
avidwriter
It's official, we're back in the robber-baron age

------
sixdimensional
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.

~~~
spindritf
Fifty years ago there would be a quarantine, no travellers from Africa, and no
response necessary.

~~~
aaronbrethorst
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?

~~~
hga
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.

------
imjk
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://mashable.com/2014/09/29/zuckerberg-hawaii/)
[http://www.businessinsider.com/mark-zuckerberg-
buys-700-acre...](http://www.businessinsider.com/mark-zuckerberg-
buys-700-acres-in-hawaii-for-more-than-100-million-2014-10)

------
plg
I'd like to see them donate to the EFF

------
fdsary
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.

~~~
autechr3
When you are married, all of your spouses money is your money (unless you
agree it isnt).

~~~
spikels
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](http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_property)

[2] [http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/21/us-facebook-
prenup...](http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/21/us-facebook-prenup-
idUSBRE84K02H20120521)

