“This is hard news,” wrote Korber, “but please don’t only be disheartened by it.

Is it okay to be just a little disheartened?

Yes. Gates said he was planning on building 7 different kinds.

With that in mind, Gates has been airing another big idea. Usually, only the vaccine that is going to be used is manufactured. That means a delay in the rollout between when a vaccine is chosen and when it is actually available at the necessary scale.

Gates’s proposal is to build seven factories, for all the leading vaccine candidates, and manufacture lots of each of them. It will mean some wasted money, but it’ll be worth it to get a vaccine to patients sooner. He estimates this will cost billions. Though the foundation hasn’t disclosed how much it will personally be spending, a project of this magnitude will require other stakeholders — as have most of Gates’s public health projects.

I hope this is more than a plan.
It should be propelled by Federal efforts and resources.

We just handed out a few trillion dollars, and much was absconded by the rich for non-intended purposes. Clinton's hard-earned balanced budget was gutted for a tax cut for the rich and then a trillion dollars trumped up war. Banks used near-0% gov loans in 2009 to mass acquire underwater properties and robosugn mortgage foreclosures, ending the private home ownership bargain for good.

Norman Borlaugh(sp?) who refined 3rd world agriculture, saving/feeding billions of lives was working on a Rockefeller grant. Soros filled the post-wall vacuum in East Europe with huge funds when America went cheap looking for it's "peace dividend", probably paving the way for 10-12 new EU countries today (and keeping from being dragged back into the Russian sphere)

Nestlé has gotten beat up for years over sending powdered milk to Africa because of lack of clean water, yet they continue the program knowing there's simply no food, so the alternative to contaminated baby food is simply starvation. Yet they take the hit and soldier on.

I remember shopping for baby clothes, and a woman tells me "I don't buy Vietnamese, because they have underpaid sweatshops", following Nike publicity, so she moved over to Chinese-made clothing sewn using prison labor and felt content.

Not every donor will be as hands-on and conscientious as Gates. Still, Gates' presence will also deform the charity field, pushing people to move the Foundation's way rather than their original path, drying up some avenues and vehicles, but enabling others. Such is life. Arguably there's a huge net benefit. (A recent breakthrough on understanding malaria seems a huge game changer). Plus to me, getting control of Sub-Saharan population, disease, water supply, food leading into jobs and education (from rural ag or low tech urban to next gen production) seems our most critical task for the next 50 years, also impacting global warming and our total world balance. Because imbalance bites us in the ass.

I would say this question also butts up against "how much of a role and voice should wealthy donors and black activists have in the party?" We want people to be involved, but want fair representation. It's easy to say "screw the rich guy", but if that guy is going to help you win, you might want to pay attention to his thoughts if not too demanding. Blacks in general were an important part of the Democratic party apparatus - this got weakened last cycle by largely killing the prerogatives of Superdelegates and toning down the benefits of party membership and actual work (God forbid you hold an opinion). So we have a competing notion of a flat, undifferentiated democracy vs a meritocracy/contribution-based influence gig. Certainly like Betsy de Vos or the Mercer's, not all influence is progressive. Thiel is probably tech savvy like Bill Gates, but on the other end of the spectrum, whereas Soros, Buffet, et al will be more finance-oriented and less hands-on with specific solutions (though their underlings and organizational structure may - such as Soros's Open Society Institute grants which at times were very hands-on and sometimes even geeky nerdy). The Clinton Foundation confused people because it mostly didn't do its own work, but funneled money to initiatives they vetted - which would seem to address the concerns of the know-little Gates- or Elon Musk-like philanthropist tossing his solutions into the mix, but we see the Clinton Foundation couldn't escape criticism either ( and the reality that any results in Haiti will be tainted and limited didn't seem to buy them any sympathy - criticism largely outweighs praise for most).

It should also be expected that any of these orgs will move down the Learning Curve over the years, so criticisms of Gates Foundation 2005 may no longer be germane.