Concerns for global spread of Zika mean Rio de Janeiro Olympics must not proceed

http://harvardpublichealthreview.org/off-the-podium-why-rios-2016-olympic-games-must-not-proceed/

by bd • 10 years ago

432 176 10 years ago

bhouston• 10 years ago

I was wondering about whether this would happen. I am not enough of an expert to make a call on this either way of course, but if experts decided this was the right call would it even be possible to cancel/reschedule the Olympics? Imagine the financial impact on Rio.

giarc• 10 years ago

I imagine Rio would be given the 2020 Summer Games. And then Tokyo would be moved to 2024 and so on. Just my guess though.

tomp• 10 years ago

Well, the fair outcome would be that Tokyo was cancelled altogether, if the allegations of corruptions [1] are true.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/may/11/tokyo-olympics...

mbreese2• 10 years ago

Imagine the potential global financial impact of all of the visitors (and athletes) contracting Zika and bring that home with them to spread.

Tough call...

EGreg4• 10 years ago

Why is the FINANCIAL impact the biggest one to be considered?

PeterisP2• 10 years ago

As the number of all the visitors (and athletes) of Olympics is far smaller than the number of "normal people" currently traveling to those areas, and we've yet to see any Zika cases outside of Brazil, then this means that it's quite likely that the actual impact of that will be zero.

Yes, it's likely that someone of them will contract Zika and bring that home with them to spread - but it's more likely that it will not happen, and the effect is dwarfed by the chances that the spread will be caused by the ordinary flow of people, and cancelling the Olympics will have no effect on that.

cypherpunks01• 10 years ago

Wikipedia lists the only previously cancelled Olympics as 1916 (WWI) and 1940 and 1944 (WWII).

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Cancelled_Olympic_Gam...

takno• 10 years ago

So it's happened 3 times out of a possible 30. Doesn't even seem that dramatic when you put it that way.

shaggy2• 10 years ago

It's pretty well known and well documented at this point that the host cities for olympic games see no financial benefit at all, and in fact they lose money. Most recently, look at the Sochi games, which cost $50+bn. There is a 0% chance that the games brought in that much money. The entities making money are the IOC and the broadcast companies, NBC being the primary. It would be sad if the games were cancelled, but at the risk of a global pandemic it's hard to see how people can argue in favor anymore.

scott_s• 10 years ago

Agreed that the Olympic games do not have financially benefit the host city. But, Rio has probably already spent a lot of money on the games. Not hosting them would probably hurt, financially, even more.

Please note I am not arguing that the Olympics should continue in Rio. We should do what is best for world health, even if that negatively impacts Rio financially.

sago• 10 years ago

But that is nonsense for Rio, which has already spent its capital outlays for the games. Overall Rio may and probably will lose money, but if the games were cancelled, it could be financially catastrophic.

You're right that it isn't a question that should be determined by finances, but that's a different issue.

jbigelow76• 10 years ago

    >It would be sad if the games were cancelled, but at the risk of a global pandemic it's hard to see how people can argue in favor anymore.

The corruption, bribery, and kick backs that go into selecting host cities means that short of a host city being wiped off the map by a nuclear bomb, the games will go on.

askyourmother• 10 years ago

Come to Rio - watch the Olympians swim in the very dirty water they promised to clean but didn't! Catch zika, then fill out the police and insurance forms after you get robbed! Seriously though, Rio is a very very dangerous place to visit even for brasileros, let alone tourists, and the zika and chinkungya virus outbreaks are not helping either.

Watch it on TV, from far away.

blowski7• 10 years ago

As a middle-income tourist who has had multiple holidays in Rio, the closest I've come to being robbed was by a taxi driver that wanted $200 to travel from Corcovado to Pao de Acucar.

Seriously, it's like any other city in the world. If you walk around a dodgy area talking on an iPhone, by yourself, especially late at night, then you're asking for trouble. Be sensible and cautious, and Rio is a lovely place to go on holiday.

EDIT: I guess I'm attracted to cities with higher crime rates.

cven714• 10 years ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=if6GLohPq8k

Not that incidents like this don't occur in other cities in the world, but it shows that avoiding dodgy areas at night might not be enough.

fhsdfgdv2• 10 years ago

talking on an iPhone, by yourself, especially late at night, then you're asking for trouble.

Please don't apply your standards other cities of the world. What you described does not happen in my (capital) city. In fact if you drop something, you will likely get it back.

fllr• 10 years ago

Not that I don't agree with you... I do. But, being brazilian, the idea of walking around at any time with my iphone out makes me cringe. I love my country, and I think everyone should visit it, but just keep away your iphones and anything of value while walking about, and you'll be fine!

rsync• 10 years ago

"Seriously, it's like any other city in the world. If you walk around a dodgy area talking on an iPhone, by yourself, especially late at night, then you're asking for trouble. Be sensible and cautious, and Rio is a lovely place to go on holiday."

I generally espouse this view ... that being sensible and street smart are the important parts to visiting different cities and that, in general, they are all fairly safe.

However, I also would describe Rio and Sao Paulo as a little further along the danger/risk meter.

You know all those warnings and rules of thumb that people pass on about pickpocketing and scams and tricksters and so on ? And they never really pan out or materialize ? In Rio, they do.

I would feel more safe (than Rio) in Shanghai or Shenzhen, less safe (than Rio) in Tijuana.

dasil003• 10 years ago

Given that you don't know how to spell brasileiro I'm guessing you are not a local and don't even speak portuguese, so I'll take your opinion with a grain of salt.

ramon5• 10 years ago

I agree, the waters are dirty! Specially in Lagoa.. it's awful, cannot imagine water sports there!

outworlder• 10 years ago

Rio IS dangerous. Anyone claiming otherwise is either a "patriotic" Brazilian or is trying to generalize from personal (lucky) experience.

There are obviously many factors that come into play. The biggest ones are not what you expect: how "gringo" (foreigner) you look, and are you walking around with Brazilian friends? Negatives on both counts will increase your odds of "bad stuff" happening to you dramatically. Also, if you come from a safer place where people do stuff such as routinely leave cars and homes unlocked, casually hail any cab anywhere and walk around with expensive phones(or cameras), you're in for a big surprise.

The best safety advice I can give is: assume there is no police whatsoever in the country and act accordingly, even if you do happen to see police around. They are unlikely to do anything to help you. May not even investigate if you die.

You should still be mostly OK, statistically speaking. The problem is that, when bad things happen, they tend to be really bad. You are very very lucky that if if is something simple as a purse snatching (as I have seen in other comments). Still very lucky if there's a knife involved. Expect multiple armed thugs in motorcycles, even if you can't see everyone involved, assume there's backup for the criminals.

One thing that many have overlooked in the comments is that for Rio and Sao Paulo, the crime trend is down. In São Paulo particularly, I've even seen people casually browsing on their iPads while sitting at bar tables next to a busy road, or people talking on their iphones in barely lit streets near the city center. That was unthinkable a few years ago.

However, the trend for other regions is that crime rates are rising dramatically. Some regions, in the Northeast particularly, are worse than some war zones. Avoid, specially if you have no Brazilian friends.

Disclaimer: I am Brazilian, lived for 30+ years in the northeast. Fled to the very south, to a very good neighborhood, wife witnessed a drug-related execution in front of our building the week we arrived. Nothing came out of it btw, didn't even make the news. Where I used to live, 20+ violent deaths in a weekend are not worth newspaper pages anymore. Then fled to the Bay Area.

apalmer• 10 years ago

It should be considered, dont know if it makes sense but the pros and cons should be weighed and respected international health organizations should weigh in.

Overall though, think given the fact the facilities have not been fully constructed, the Brazilian government is on the verge of collapse, and the risks of being a major disease vector is plausible...

Should definitely consider delay or moving

zodPod• 10 years ago

I've thought this too. They pick some of the weirdest places to try to host this stuff. I guess they're trying to bring the areas up or something but if the place can't handle daily life what makes anyone think they can handle a big event like this?

douche• 10 years ago

Nobody else is willing to do it/bribe the IOC sufficently. I'm really glad Boston bailed.

icebraining• 10 years ago

How is Rio a "weird place"? They're in a bad situation right now, as any city with an outbreak of a virus and with a political crisis would be, but it's major world metropolis of 12M people with plenty of international business visitors and a GDP of 200 billion USD. They accommodate 900k tourists during Carnival alone.

marcosdumay4• 10 years ago

the Brazilian government is on the verge of collapse

Don't believe those news. The government will change today, nothing will collapse. There will be some roads closed (until the police gets there), and some brave discourses on the media, and that's all.

The government attempt a coup Monday - everybody just carried on.

dsfyu404ed• 10 years ago

I wonder if the medical community is also working with the state department, airlines and travel agencies to make sure people get a stern warning before they buy plane tickets to Brazil and an even sterner warning when they get back.

Considering the political forces that need to be involved in moving (or not) the games it seems foolish to not have a safety net if "please move the games" doesn't work.

gtirloni• 10 years ago

The Ministry of Health in Brazil has been getting a new head of department every few months, depending on the backstage deals the president has had to make in order to keep her government in place. So no, I wouldn't count on any coordinated actions being spearheaded by the government. They are pretty busy running around like headless chickens, which means insisting in inneficient methods to eliminate the mosquito (e.g. fuming).

Some airlines have been allowing passengers to refund tickets to areas affected by Zika [1].

I think every decent travel agency should worry its customers that traveling to Brazil at this time is not a good idea.

Besides the health issues, Brazil is ousting its president today and most leftist parties and unions have vouched to stop the country with strikes, blockades and protests. You may get stuck in a 2-hour traffic jam on your way to the games.

1 - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/zika-virus-m...

kordless• 10 years ago

Good luck on that. People in dissonance don't want to hear about it.

mc32• 10 years ago

That's not going to happen -- not when their economy is in a nosedive and they are embroiled in impeachment proceedings.

At most they'll spray and fumigate the skeeters for the few weeks the activities take place and then go back to "normal".

mariusz79• 10 years ago

The show must go on.

sremani• 10 years ago

I am mixed about this whole episode, at one level there is bias against developing countries. On the other end, Brazil did not do any favors for itself, with zika, political turmoil etc. But they did pull of a FIFA world cup, so I am a bit more optimistic.

ehmuidifici• 10 years ago

Brazilian here, Ive been in Rio a couple of times (living in Sao Paulo right now, who also has problems w/Aedes Aegypti):

Come to Brazil if you wish, but take care. The Aedes Aegypti mosquito is all around and can spread not only Zika, but Chikungunya (kindly named "chico cunha") and Dengue.

Make good use of insect repellent, watch your stuff when walking on beaches (don't forget robbers and thieves) and think twice about trusting someone.

As someone said before, every city in the world has its problems and brazilian cities have them also.

Personally, I will not go to Olympics just because hotel prices on Rio skyrocketed and are almost impractical.

Chris2048• 10 years ago

every city in the world has its problems and brazilian cities have them also.

At the same magnitude?

davesque2• 10 years ago

So does "fold" just mean "times"? I always thought it meant 2^x times.

xutopia• 10 years ago

Yes. It's quite commonly used in British English afaik.

You can say "This brought a twofold increase in clientele", "We saw a threefold weight increase in affected mammals". I've never seen it used passed "fourfold" though.

cjslep• 10 years ago

"Tenfold" seems common enough.

jakub_g• 10 years ago

Yep, N-fold = N times

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tenfold

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/twofold

davesque2• 10 years ago

I guess I got confused since it seems to be used for emphasis, as though tenfold really meant more than 10x. Anyway, glad to get that straight.

DannyBee3• 10 years ago

Serious question: Has anyone seen an article or study about the microcephaly effects on pregnancy where the main population studied was not in brazil?

I have yet to see a study that links it to microcephaly for anyone who has not been in brazil for a long time. I realize the mosquito isn't common, but brazil also does things like: "secretly spray tons and tons of pesticide on their populus", etc.

Given these are all correlative studies, i'd love to see something from a country where there aren't a ton of possible other variables.

(especially given zika has been around and even common forever and it's only now that this seems to be an issue)

You know, before the tourism economies of all of these other countries are completely destroyed.

rubidium2• 10 years ago

Yes, microcephaly from Zika has been detected in many south american countries. CDC supports the link, as does scientific consensus: http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2016/s0413-zika-microcepha...

It's the fat cats who don't want to move/postpone the Olympics most. They have the most to lose.

Tycho4• 10 years ago

The evidence is not compelling: https://twitter.com/WLTSchirano/status/728917519457787904

Why are there hardly any cases in Colombia?

DannyBee3• 10 years ago

Thanks, this is incredibly helpful.

pge• 10 years ago

The article linked in the original post refers to a retrospective analysis in French Polynesia (the source of the virus in Brazil) that found a huge increase in Zika-induced microcephaly there as well.

mixmastamyk• 10 years ago

Article said the virulent strain came from French Polynesia (aka Tahiti).

DannyBee3• 10 years ago

French polynesia is not tahiti. Tahiti is one of the islands (rangiroa, moorea are other examples). Tahiti is the most populous, but if you read the study, it does not say tahiti.

Most of the other islands are remarkably small.

Note also that the methodology used in that study (http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-67...) is a retrospective analysis of data that uses somewhat ... almost laughable assumptions-

Modelling assumptions for estimation of risk of microcephaly associated with Zika virus infection: ...

•All microcephaly cases in the study period have been identified

•The birth rate is constant during the study period and can be estimated from official statistics

•The number of Zika virus infections in a given week is proportional to the number of consultations for suspected infection in the same week

Note the last one: They are estimating actual zika infections not from zika infections, but from consultations of people suspected to have zika and the percent who were later found to have zika.

So how accurate is such a "suspicion based consultation"?

By the end of the outbreak, public health officials had recorded 8750 suspected infections with Zika virus, of which 383 (4.4%) were confirmed in the laboratory.

At this point, i'm going to suggest maybe their assumptions are not quite as strong as they think they are.

....

ChicagoBoy118• 10 years ago

This article is idiotic if the main reason for cancelling the game is actually some "global spread" of Zika.

Rio is not some city in the middle of nowhere from which no flights are coming in and out of, and now suddenly this massive international influx of visitors will come in -- it is a world-class city, a financial hub of the largest country in the continent.

If we take London 2012 as a benchmark, estimates there are that the olympics yielded a 13% increase in foreign visitors from the previous summer. And that is London, a place where access from other destinations is cheaper, the infrastructure better, and a lot more appealing to U.S. visitors (due to some of the things cited above). It is completely reasonable to expect that the delta in Rio should be roughly the same, if not smaller.

The fact is that the"impact" on travel due to the Olympics will be negligible in a city like Rio -- and the economic impact is CERTAINLY negative, unless you are drinking the Kool-Aid of organizers.

I'm fine with cancelling the games, but claiming that not doing so will lead to a much riskier global health situation than the one we are already living is hogwash.

maxerickson4• 10 years ago

I would expect the differences you mention to result in a higher delta for Rio, they would contribute to a lower base rate of travel making the event travel relatively larger.

ChicagoBoy118• 10 years ago

When I wrote my original comment I certainly had a model that the base rate of travel was pretty comparable to LDN, but I looked at actual figures from a few years ago and saw that it is in fact 5x smaller.

Nevertheless, the 500,000 figure cited would represent a ~25% bump in the number of visitors (if we use 2012 figures). If you consider the area in Brazil most affected by Zika (which would include São Paulo), then this drops to 10%. You then also have to realize that a lot of those visitors displaced people who did not travel to Rio because of the olympics, which is an effect that is widely documented. Taken into account, I think it is plausible to suggest that the real impact of travel that we'd be seeing would be in the low teens or single digits.

But I think it is certainly debatable, and I guess this is the only point I really wanted to make in my comment -- that THIS is really the focus if you wanted to argue that the games ought to be suspended, but that the article doesn't address it in the least.

illumen• 10 years ago

London has the most tourists of any city in the world.

No, it's not the same.

ChicagoBoy118• 10 years ago

I looked up the actual figures after posting -- seems London has about 5x as many international visitors, so you are absolutely right.

But, I think in Rio there is also an argument to be made of how many of those "estimated" visitors are actually simply displacing people who would otherwise have travelled to Rio. To your point, if Rio is in fact no set-up to accommodate as many people as London, then a lot of the effect of the games will simply be substituting regular travelers with Olympics watchers.

Either way -- the only point I guess I was really trying to make was that the variable of interest is the delta in the actual visitors to Rio -- you want an economist making this argument, not a health expert

rubidium2• 10 years ago

Good point. I agreed with the author until I looked up Brazil's tourism. 5.6 Million people per year in 2015 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tourism_in_Brazil).

komali22• 10 years ago

If you're looking at the chart, that's 2012, not 2015.

Cyph0n• 10 years ago

I'm surprised that people need to look up such a thing. Brazil is a hot tourism destination, especially from other South American countries. It's also has a huge economy and has excellent manufacturing capabilities.

bryanlarsen2• 10 years ago

The bulk of the tourism to Brazil is either from Central & South America, which already has the virulent strain of Zika, or it's from Europe and northern North America, which does not have the Aedes Aegypta mosquita.

Olympics tourism will be much more widespread, including many from vulnerable areas in Africa and Asia.

And the OP does not say that it will prevent the spread of Zika, only slow it. Even a few extra months could be valuable -- lots of effort is currently being spent looking for a vaccine.

komali22• 10 years ago

5,677,000 tourists to Brazil in 2012. So 500,000 is an 8% increase, correct?

ChicagoBoy118• 10 years ago

Well you have to be fair that that is taking ALL of Brazil into account, and some regions are unaffected by this virus -- but the largest builk of it (I think around 80%) are the cities of São Paulo and Rio, which are affected by the virus.

wrsh07• 10 years ago

Right, over the whole year not so substantial. Assuming an even distribution of tourism per month (false, but I lack a better model), that's about 500,000 per month. This is essentially doubling the tourism during the events.

As the article says, sending tourists into an outbreak of a new virus does not seem prudent.

shaggy2• 10 years ago

Yes, Rio sees many visitors regularly. What Rio does not see is an influx of visitors from nearly every country on earth. It's that spread that is the problem. The financial impact on hosting the games is already negative for host cities. That's no longer debatable without ignoring fact. Your argument that all the experts studying the Zika epidemic and drawing the ever more cemented conclusion that this is a very serious problem are wrong is what is hogwash.

ChicagoBoy118• 10 years ago

But will you at least concede that THIS is what should have been the focus of the article? While perfectly valid, all of the scientific discussion around Zika is mostly irrelevant to the point the author was trying to make -- the true variable of interest is how the games shape the quantity of visitors and the distribution of those visitors around the world. But there's hardly a line in the article about that -- just the 500,000 number is thrown around with absolutely no citation.

Instead,the article does some of the worst things we'd expect from scientists with sentences like "All it takes is one infected traveler" -- this is fear-mongering and irresponsible and the author should be ashamed of that comment.

I maintain that it is not a careful, reasoned argument about the issue.

saiya-jin• 10 years ago

sorry but no, Rio sees visitors from most countries out there. it's not an even spread like it would be in case of olympics, but not that far from it.

soneca2• 10 years ago

Actually RJ does have an influx of visitors from nearly every country on earth.

source (see page 97): http://www.dadosefatos.turismo.gov.br/export/sites/default/d...

1bm• 10 years ago

The negative financial impact of the games comes mostly from building and maintaining the Olympic infrastructure. Cancelling the games doesn't solve this problem, on the contrary as it denies the country the income and touristic reputation boost. Public health concerns go first of course, but it's not gonna be a financial win.

HillaryBriss3• 10 years ago

This is the claim: Scientists can disagree on how much the mass migration of 500,000 foreigners will accelerate the virus’s global spread and make the pandemic worse—but none can possibly argue that it will slow it down or make things better.

ChicagoBoy118• 10 years ago

Agreed -- but this should have been the focus of the article, which it wasn't, and that's why I think it was irresponsible and poorly written. How much is 500k compared to normal travel to Rio, or to areas of Brazil and the rest of LatAm affected by Zika? What is the geographic distribution of Olympic visitors compared to regular tourists to Rio? What measures has the city taken to curb the impact of Zika that it may not take if the Olympics aren't held? etc.

Clearly you have to inspect that 500,000 number carefully, and that's all that matters for this argument. That would've been an honest discussion on this issue, but it is not what the authors chose to concentrate on.

ChuckMcM• 10 years ago

It is only idiotic if you ignore the emotional response. The author is very afraid of this strain of Zika, they recognize that world wide distribution is inevitable but they seek to address their fear by advocating an action they know "could" be taken, to cancel the games.

samstave• 10 years ago

Ill panic once Madaagascar closes its ports.

wamsachel• 10 years ago

port

bo1024• 10 years ago

I think claims as strong and vehement as yours ("hogwash") should be backed up more and better than in your post.

S_A_P• 10 years ago

Zika is already in Houston, Dallas and other Texas cities. I dont know if it is tourism that brought it here or not, but it has enough transmission vectors that its only a matter of time before its everywhere.

wyldfire2• 10 years ago

Ever since the news of Zika causing microcephaly came up I have been wondering whether it's a net benefit to humanity/homeostasis if we were to exterminate Aedis Aegypti. Can Zika spread among humans already? It would seem like a huge risk to the future of humanity if this infectious disease interferes with reproduction.

What's the worst-case scenario for letting Aedis Aegypti live? Is it better than the worst-case scenario for exterminating the species?

maxerickson4• 10 years ago

Zika is a big threat to fetuses that are gestating while the mother is infected. After a woman gains immunity, there is little threat to any babies she might carry.

So it is a very serious concern at the moment, but it is not any sort of existential problem. It will likely not even be a medium term problem (there is early research towards vaccines).

smellf• 10 years ago

After a woman gains immunity, there is little threat to any babies she might carry.

It is way too early to make that claim.

You're also ignoring the Guillain–Barré cases that are suspected to have been caused by Zika.

cjbprime• 10 years ago

I think the concern would be dominated by the side-effects of the method we use to perform the total extermination, rather than the side-effects of Aedis Aegypti being extinct.

wyldfire2• 10 years ago

I vaguely recall hearing about an effort to release sterilized males that would effectively reduce the population local to where they're released. That seemed to be a very safe way to change the environment. The only difference might be the scale by which we could execute that method.

bryanlarsen2• 10 years ago

article suggesting that, and lots of discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11536074

Tycho4• 10 years ago

is this link actually confirmed yet? from what I heard, other nations which Zika has spread to have not seen an increase in the rate of microcephaly.

maxerickson4• 10 years ago

(I was curious what the status was so searched)

The CDC has weighed in:

http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2016/s0413-zika-microcepha...

ramon5• 10 years ago

Just wanted to reply to all and say: If you are afraid of Zika, Dengue or whatever the mosquitos transmits, don't get out of your houses! I will go after those bastards!

Best to all, Signed: The mosquito killer! :p

ck2• 10 years ago

Could people accidentally bring back live mosquitoes in their luggage and such that are carriers?

If so, could spread the world at lightning speed.

I think there is also concern for the athletes in that the water is absolutely filthy there.

marcosdumay4• 10 years ago

The mosquito already lives in every place the climate does not kill it.

It's the spread of the virus that's scaring everybody.

msimpson• 10 years ago

Thanks to this article I am now aware of a man named Dick Pound.

transfire• 10 years ago

What? Are they planning a culling, on which they will blame Zika and the Olympics? Otherwise, this make zero sense.

Despite all the hype, Zika is not the end of the world. Most people who get it hardly notice and get over it in rather short order just as one gets over a cold.

InglouriousG• 10 years ago

What about the microcephalic babies born to people infected with Zika? That's not exactly a hardly noticeable side effect...

tim333• 10 years ago

It's kind of a shame that there is probably a solution to Zika sitting there waiting for regulatory approval in Oxitec's GM mosquitoes which were first successfully trialed in 2009. Maybe after another one or two million people have caught Zika they'll get around to using it.

neves2• 10 years ago

What will prevent the outbreak is the weather in Rio. The Zika mosquito takes 3 to 4 weeks to reproduce http://www.denguevirusnet.com/life-cycle-of-aedes-aegypti.ht... and it loves hot and wet weather.

The autumn in Rio is the coldest and driest in a long time http://g1.globo.com/rio-de-janeiro/noticia/2016/03/outono-no... When the Olympics arrive, the mosquito will be in their lowest population count.

If you consider that the Olympics tourists are rich ones, that will spend most of their times in air conditioned environments, the risk is really very low.

Concerns for global spread of Zika mean Rio de Janeiro Olympics must not proceed

Related Stories