It's pathetic that a government agency is beholden to charity from billionaires instead of being fully funded from tax receipts. What a debacle.<p>That said, hat's off to Zuckerberg. His reaction sharply contrasts with so much of the shameful, cynical fearmongering from some quarters.
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?
For extra fun, compare and contrast with his simultaneous $100M purchase of a 700-acre waterfront estate in Kauai:<p><a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8454885" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8454885</a>
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).<p>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.<p>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.<p>Certainly, funding for educational outreach to help prevent the spread of Ebola on multiple fronts is helpful.<p>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).<p>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).<p>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.
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: <a href="http://mashable.com/2014/09/29/zuckerberg-hawaii/" rel="nofollow">http://mashable.com/2014/09/29/zuckerberg-hawaii/</a>
<a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/mark-zuckerberg-buys-700-acres-in-hawaii-for-more-than-100-million-2014-10" rel="nofollow">http://www.businessinsider.com/mark-zuckerberg-buys-700-acre...</a>
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.