7 ms·

Priscilla Chan and Mark Zuckerberg Donating $25M to the CDC Foundation

85 points by geetee 12y ago

sixdimensional 12y ago
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.
- ISL 12y ago
  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.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
- spindritf 12y ago
  Fifty years ago there would be a quarantine, no travellers from Africa, and no response necessary.
  - misterbwong 12y ago
    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.
  - aaronbrethorst 12y ago
    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 12y ago
      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.
  - 12y ago
throwaway5752 12y ago
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.
- aaronbrethorst 12y ago
  There's an opportunity to do something about it coming up in just a couple weeks. First Tuesday in November, to be precise.
  - JDDunn9 12y ago
    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.
- bluedevil2k 12y ago
  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.
- gohrt 12y ago
  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.
- gdubs 12y ago
  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.
- wehadfun 12y ago
  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
plg 12y ago
I'd like to see them donate to the EFF
fdsary 12y ago
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 12y ago
  When you are married, all of your spouses money is your money (unless you agree it isnt).
  - spikels 12y ago
    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-idUSBRE84K02H20120521 http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/21/us-facebook-prenup...
- gohrt 12y ago
  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.
- jvagner 12y ago
  "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.
avidwriter 12y ago
It's official, we're back in the robber-baron age
imjk 12y ago
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-acres-in-hawaii-for-more-than-100-million-2014-10 http://www.businessinsider.com/mark-zuckerberg-buys-700-acre...
danieltillett 12y ago
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 12y ago
  Have you read the front page of the news recently?
dreamweapon 12y ago
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

85 points by geetee 12y ago

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.

ISL 12y ago
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.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
spindritf 12y ago
Fifty years ago there would be a quarantine, no travellers from Africa, and no response necessary.
- misterbwong 12y ago
  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.
- aaronbrethorst 12y ago
  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 12y ago
    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.
- 12y ago

throwaway5752 12y ago

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.

aaronbrethorst 12y ago
There's an opportunity to do something about it coming up in just a couple weeks. First Tuesday in November, to be precise.
- JDDunn9 12y ago
  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.
bluedevil2k 12y ago
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.
gohrt 12y ago
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.
gdubs 12y ago
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.
wehadfun 12y ago
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

plg 12y ago

I'd like to see them donate to the EFF

fdsary 12y ago

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 12y ago
When you are married, all of your spouses money is your money (unless you agree it isnt).
- spikels 12y ago
  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-idUSBRE84K02H20120521 http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/21/us-facebook-prenup...
gohrt 12y ago
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.
jvagner 12y ago
"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.

avidwriter 12y ago

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

imjk 12y ago

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-acres-in-hawaii-for-more-than-100-million-2014-10 http://www.businessinsider.com/mark-zuckerberg-buys-700-acre...

danieltillett 12y ago

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 12y ago
Have you read the front page of the news recently?

dreamweapon 12y ago

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