5 ms·

It is not. Sorry, $6B annual budget is not a lot in the context of their responsibility, which is substantially greater than ebola [edit: or even outbreak conta

It is not. Sorry, $6B annual budget is not a lot in the context of their responsibility, which is substantially greater than ebola [edit: or even outbreak containment in general, for that matter]. In fact, ebola (as evidenced by the lack of transmission to Duncan's own family or any additional caregivers of his [edit: not to mention a lack of host reservoir in NA]) probably and appropriately very low on the CDC's radar, since it is _not_ a public health threat in the US. late edit: To put it in perspective, approximately $3B was the total operating expenses for just Massachusetts General Hospital, alone, in 2012. Or just 50% greater than the 2014 budget for UCSF. Or just half of what Apple spent on SG&A in the 12 months prior to Sept 27.

001sky 12y ago
Common sense is priceless.
jerf 12y ago
Then my point is even more important given the proportion of it actually spent on infectious diseases. If that's so allfired important than why were they doing anything else with that money? The answer, of course, is that it wasn't considered so important until a couple of months ago, and thus, it wouldn't matter how much money was thrown at them, it wouldn't have solved the fundamental priority problem. Contra to some of the press, I took the time to read the CDC's summary budget from the government's website. It wasn't hard to find ("Center for Disease Control" budget). It's full of things that sound superficially wonderful, but none of it matters if it's being spent incompetently or with priorities not connected to the real world, and throwing "more" at such an organization is not a good investment. You can't get away from it. It isn't about more, it's also about what. What matters a lot. Again, I'd be less vocal about not just handing the government more if the advocates of more would pay more attention... much more attention... to what, and how well. But I can't help but notice the advocates of "more" seem to consider that an attack, when in all seriousness they really ought to be leading the charge. If you are an advocate of giving the government more, shouldn't you consider it very important to your own position that what the government already has be used well? You give away an enormous weapon when you leave it solely to your opponents to point out problems!
- throwaway5752 12y ago
  I am not trying to be difficult, but I don't understand your point. Ebola is a vanishingly unimportant concern as far as infectious diseases go. This current "outbreak" has resulted in 2 transmissions in the US to date. The reason it appears that the system failed is that the system correctly reacted to a low value threat, but it was amplified into a hysteria because of dynamics in media economics and US political cycles. If I were the CDC, I'd be spending a boatload on SARS, MERS, MERSA, MDR/XDR TB, any number of the highly virulent seasonal influenza strains, social programs to promote vaccinations (pertussis, for example, kills more babies in the US annually than there have been total US cases of Ebola), annual rabies tracking programs, general education (good hygiene practices)... so many others. And the good news is they are doing this, as I'm sure your research into their budget shows. edit: thus the downvoter exemplifies the problem, without saying a single word.
  - hga 12y ago
    OK, I'll down vote you and explain why: your studied inability or unwillingness to do math, to whit, what a disease like Ebola can do in a 3rd World urban environment (or village/small town ones different than the former locations of outbreaks), specifically double the number of infections approximately every 3 weeks. Right now this Ebola outbreak gives every sign of having the potential to be the most significant public health event in a number of centuries. Like, maybe we'll end up having to go back to the 1346–1350 Black Death for comparison, unless we can develop, test, produce and distribute a vaccine very quickly.
    - throwaway5752 12y ago
      Malaria kills 500K-1M people EVERY DAMN YEAR in subsaharan Africa (http://www.who.int/malaria/media/world_malaria_report_2013/en/ http://www.who.int/malaria/media/world_malaria_report_2013/e...).
      - hga 12y ago
        The CDC's worst case, last I heard, was 1.4 total million infected with Ebola in January. At the current estimate of 70% lethality, there's your 1M million people 10-16 days after infection. Then it all doubles in 3 weeks. And another 3 weeks. Do the math. If you want to be conservative, dial the starting point back, it won't matter for long. But when I did my own calculations, I found 20,000 cases as of a week or two ago (a fairly conservative guess at the true number) would get you to 1.4 million in January.

001sky 12y ago

Common sense is priceless.

jerf 12y ago

Then my point is even more important given the proportion of it actually spent on infectious diseases. If that's so allfired important than why were they doing anything else with that money? The answer, of course, is that it wasn't considered so important until a couple of months ago, and thus, it wouldn't matter how much money was thrown at them, it wouldn't have solved the fundamental priority problem. Contra to some of the press, I took the time to read the CDC's summary budget from the government's website. It wasn't hard to find ("Center for Disease Control" budget). It's full of things that sound superficially wonderful, but none of it matters if it's being spent incompetently or with priorities not connected to the real world, and throwing "more" at such an organization is not a good investment. You can't get away from it. It isn't about more, it's also about what. What matters a lot. Again, I'd be less vocal about not just handing the government more if the advocates of more would pay more attention... much more attention... to what, and how well. But I can't help but notice the advocates of "more" seem to consider that an attack, when in all seriousness they really ought to be leading the charge. If you are an advocate of giving the government more, shouldn't you consider it very important to your own position that what the government already has be used well? You give away an enormous weapon when you leave it solely to your opponents to point out problems!

throwaway5752 12y ago
I am not trying to be difficult, but I don't understand your point. Ebola is a vanishingly unimportant concern as far as infectious diseases go. This current "outbreak" has resulted in 2 transmissions in the US to date. The reason it appears that the system failed is that the system correctly reacted to a low value threat, but it was amplified into a hysteria because of dynamics in media economics and US political cycles. If I were the CDC, I'd be spending a boatload on SARS, MERS, MERSA, MDR/XDR TB, any number of the highly virulent seasonal influenza strains, social programs to promote vaccinations (pertussis, for example, kills more babies in the US annually than there have been total US cases of Ebola), annual rabies tracking programs, general education (good hygiene practices)... so many others. And the good news is they are doing this, as I'm sure your research into their budget shows. edit: thus the downvoter exemplifies the problem, without saying a single word.
- hga 12y ago
  OK, I'll down vote you and explain why: your studied inability or unwillingness to do math, to whit, what a disease like Ebola can do in a 3rd World urban environment (or village/small town ones different than the former locations of outbreaks), specifically double the number of infections approximately every 3 weeks. Right now this Ebola outbreak gives every sign of having the potential to be the most significant public health event in a number of centuries. Like, maybe we'll end up having to go back to the 1346–1350 Black Death for comparison, unless we can develop, test, produce and distribute a vaccine very quickly.
  - throwaway5752 12y ago
    Malaria kills 500K-1M people EVERY DAMN YEAR in subsaharan Africa (http://www.who.int/malaria/media/world_malaria_report_2013/en/ http://www.who.int/malaria/media/world_malaria_report_2013/e...).
    - hga 12y ago
      The CDC's worst case, last I heard, was 1.4 total million infected with Ebola in January. At the current estimate of 70% lethality, there's your 1M million people 10-16 days after infection. Then it all doubles in 3 weeks. And another 3 weeks. Do the math. If you want to be conservative, dial the starting point back, it won't matter for long. But when I did my own calculations, I found 20,000 cases as of a week or two ago (a fairly conservative guess at the true number) would get you to 1.4 million in January.