4 ms·

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

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.
- gdubs 12y ago
  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.
aaronbrethorst 12y ago
The CDC is a government organization. It's part of HHS.
- sixdimensional 12y ago
  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.
sixdimensional 12y ago
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).
- deciplex 12y ago
  >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.
scott_s 12y ago
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-571-why-raising-money-for-ebola-is-hard http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2014/09/26/351515481/episode-...
- sixdimensional 12y ago
  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).
csharpminor 12y ago
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.

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.
gdubs 12y ago
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.

aaronbrethorst 12y ago

The CDC is a government organization. It's part of HHS.

sixdimensional 12y ago
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.

sixdimensional 12y ago

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).

deciplex 12y ago
>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.

scott_s 12y ago

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-571-why-raising-money-for-ebola-is-hard http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2014/09/26/351515481/episode-...

sixdimensional 12y ago
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).

csharpminor 12y ago

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.