Nobody I can find is giving credible numbers that show the olympics will constitute a significant increase to affected areas over the year as a whole (edit: as adevine points out, below, the article puts the increase at c 0.0025), nor that travel is currently only from a handful of places worldwide.
If international travel to Rio is a public health problem, then focussing on the olympics is pure tokenism.
Total volume isn't the right consideration if almost all visitors are from places that Zika already exists or can't exist.
Update: I checked the stats: 93% of visitors to Brazil come from places where Zika already is or can't go:
5% are from Asia. Africa isn't mentioned, but it must be less than 2%, part of which would be from North African countries that can't get Zika.
The olympics will bring visitors from every country. It should increase the speed with which the virus reaches sub Saharan African, and Southern Asia.
I don't think your information actually allays any of the concerns, as the total stats refer to visitors from different countries than those who will be visiting during the olympics.
Over what time period?
* tourism to Rio this year is presumably lower than the baseline I'm using because it is presently the site of a Zika outbreak.
* the tourism into Rio for the Olympics is especially international, so it may be reasonable to be especially concerned about its effect on global transmission of the virus.
I think the people advocating for canceling the Olympics understand that it's only 10% extra tourism, but still think that small percentage of extra tourism is a bad outcome.
1. From Latin America, where Zika already is, or
2. From US/Europe, where Zika can't go.
The olmypics will bring a delegation from every country + tourists from more of those countries. So Zika can spread to other regions. And once it spreads anywhere in a large region it will likely spread everywhere.
The range shown here includes all of the Southeast and Texas, much of the southern Midwest, and California up to and including the Bay Area.
What? There have been Zika cases in the US.
I suppose Southern Europe might be able to get it? I'm not sure if the extent of the mosquitos there.
Update: only a very small bit of southern Spain. So not really a concern for Europe or North Africa. Also, they don't have the sort of contiguous area where it would spread across a whole continent.
Map of Aedes Aegyptus: http://m.imgur.com/uCegZHS?r
> "There’s been some claims that if the Olympics happen, it’s going to disseminate the virus everywhere, it’s going to amplify it," Frieden said. "Well, we looked at the numbers. The Olympics account for less than one quarter of 1 percent of all travel to Zika-affected areas."
As others have pointed out, there are poor countries that have trouble eradicating mosquito borne disease (think malaria, which is transmitted via the same species as zika) that do not currently have zika. Increasing the speed of the spread of the disease does not seem logical given that we do not even have a vaccine.
Moreover, this is a rapidly evolving disease which is also sexually transmitted.
I would not recommend traveling to Rio or other Zika-invested countries right now. You can't just get vaccinated before travelling.
Doubling the tourism to Brazil for a month seems like a bad idea at best, hazardous at worst.
1. The Olympics venues are in places that have been particularly hard hit by the virus.
2. Much of those non-Olympic travelers are business travelers on short visits. Olympic visitors will typically visit for longer. Risk of infection should go up as length of stay goes up.
3. The virus can be sexually transmitted between humans. I'd expect that Olympic visitors have a higher probability than the average visitor of engaging in sex during their stay.
It's not the full set of hundreds of thousands of people that fly in and out of Brazil each day that you should be comparing against, but rather the subset of those that are there for vacations lasting at least a week or two.
It would then pretty much be the last 5 mega-venues (Beijing, London, ...) that could tanke turns re-doing it. Which would be a good thing.
Next option is not having it in one place. It can be a global event. It wouldn't matter if athletics is in Berlin while all the cycling is in Madrid. Would only be worse for on-site fans.
A distributed Olympic would just be a synchronised "World Championship" (events that would then lose all significance, btw, further shrinking budgets). Not gonna happen.
As such, any proposal based upon rational analysis and sound engineering must be rejected out of hand, because it does not account for kickbacks, baksheesh, palm-greasing, boondoggles, junkets, tribute, or straight bribery.
Once you adopt this view, the Olympics work perfectly, year after year, without fail. The public still benefits, because ordinarily corruption and profiteering of that magnitude requires a war, which can at times get out of hand.
What will it become if confined to one city? An experiment in finding boundaries of vanity?
I remember the lead up to the Sydney Olympics and no-one seemed to want it - then it arrived and it was an amazing 2 weeks long party and everyone loved it.
Beijing on the other hand was the converse - everyone was expecting it and looking forward to it and then it came and the city went in to virtual lockdown.
You never know which way it's going to go.
How do you think this compares with a typical land-based Olympic venue? What other challenges make this idea absurd and ridiculous?
Fun story: I was talking to some Shell people a few years back, about the potential troubles with LNG sloshing in process equipment due to waves. I asked them, why not just make the ship big enough that waves don't affect it as much? They looked at me very strangely for a few seconds before explaining just how big it already is.
They already hosted sports events (see the "sport" section of that wikipedia page).
The United States has hosted eight olympics and there are about that many countries that never have. London has hosted it three times, Madrid ever has. And so on. The current method is already distinctly unfair. So I don't see how centralizing it into its own nation, like it once was, makes it worse than now.
Probably because there were three other games--Pythian, Nemean, and Isthmian--that were held at other sites around the Hellenic world? And the "world" was small enough that the sites of each didn't feel inaccessible to (much of) the citizenry of the competing states?
(I find the Olympics generally disappointing and I have no love for them as an event, but a partial view of history doesn't really help anyone.)
Many countries and cities who have actually asked their people whether they want an Olympics in the last few years have voted no, for example Oslo in Norway and Stockholm in Sweden.
If the IOC runs out of countries willing to host it, then perhaps the host cities will be able to temper how much they want to spend on it. The Olympics don't have to be so elaborate.
Not for one moment do I think the Russian people freely chose to host the recent winter Olympics at a summer beach resort, where metric tons of ice and snow were trucked in, creating the Olympics equivalent of Kleenex in the most obvious one time use venue in recent memory. And the IOC went in on this total scam artistry too instead of having a WTF moment, so they are not just implicated, they're the ones who facilitate this nonsense. I refuse to believe Russians are proud of the abject stupidity that was the Sochi Olympics, even setting aside the rampant bribery and cheating.
I'm not particularly a fan of the Olympics, but I can see why cities bid against each other to host it.
The only way the host country makes money from the Olympics is if tourists spend enough money on lodging, food, etc. That pipe dream hasn't worked out well for several countries who've recently hosted the games. The deal is so bad for the winter games that few countries are bidding it anymore.
It's only recently that more people are realizing that the numbers don't usually add up. Even then, lots of people are so passionate about sports that they simply don't care about how much public money is poured into a black hole to host these events (or build stadiums). And that's not even getting into the corruption.
Building a gigantic temporary stadium does not.
Surely you aren't serious in suggesting that no economic activity of note occurs there and that these 12 states need the Olympics as a quadrennial boost to business?
I disagree. Most of the stadiums built for olympics are bringing kids to sports and introducing them to sport activities that nobody even heard before. And every national championship is held at those venues for many years after olympics.
It's tough to know what's really going on with their crime (given our sensationalist media and my not living there)... but you couldn't pay me enough money to go to the 2016 Olympics.
That being said, I stayed on the boardwalk of copacabana Beach at a hotel and there was never a problem day or night. If you stay in the tourist sections, the post guards and the area is very safe
Weelllll, with enough money you could hire body guards, or just not worry about how much is stolen from you :)
He has been pursuing his knowledge-web concept for the past couple of decades, though I also get the feeling his game's slipped a bit. The first Connections and The Day the Universe Changed are really his best work. Both remain quite relevant to this day.
The Knowledge Web concept is ... interesting, but of itself I don't find it quite so fundamental or useful as the concepts of Connections & TDTUC.
On the other hand, you remind me that sinks and unintended consequences seem to be particularly potent late-stage factors in technological revolutions.
I understand that there's a lot of money and sunk cost at stake for Brazil and IOC but their adamance over this is dangerous.
* President was impeached, rampant corruption farther down
* Crime and social unrest arising from the massive amount of money spent on Olympics vs social programs
* Reports of pollution making watersports unsafe
Also, the Olympics are a billion dollar business. Billions of dollars VS faster spreading of Zika. Billions. They aren't going to postpone it.
But you are accusing a bunch of scientist,s just because they're from the US and a Canada, is doing the same thing you're accusing them of (except you have no proof, and in fact it probably has more to do with social connections and organizations than anything.)
If anything, I would be more skeptical if any Brazillian scientists said "It's fine, Zika is not a problem, come to the Olympics." Because as you said, Billions. (And note, I'm not saying this is happening, just explaining an idea).
And health care is a trillion dollar business, so don't cancel the Olympics, instead buy call options on the various pharma companies that might provide a vaccine soonest and invest in any lab that is working on a fast blood test for keeping the blood supply clean.
Random questions I don't see coming up in the news coverage, does anyone know how long Zika remains in the blood stream post infection? Are you immune once you've had it once? What are the risks to pregnant women a year after they have been infected?
"The virus has also been linked to neurological disorders in adults."
This is made even more interesting because the set of people who have contracted the virus and have brains, is significantly larger than the set of people who have contracted the virus and are pregnant (which is a proper subset of the above group). So from a risk perspective it seems less of an issue than West Nile in men/non-pregnant women.
If there is a substantial increase in neurological sequelae, we're likely to only see this uptick several years from now.
Time is important, here, because scientists are racing the spread of Zika to develop eg vaccines.
Through mosquito bites,
From mother to child,
Through sexual contact,
Through blood transfusion.
"... Anyone who lives in or travels to an area where Zika virus is found and has not already been infected with Zika virus can get it from mosquito bites. Once a person has been infected, he or she is likely to be protected from future infections. ..."
Considering Zika is rarely ever deadly (has anyone died from it yet?), what is the point of a vaccine? Just give everyone the disease (excluding pregnant woman of course).
Everyone (except pregnant women) => Virtually all mosquitoes => Pregnant women
NB: The dengue data they refer to shows a sharp decline in infections from May on, at the end of the wet season (obviously inferring from 2015 data).
I don't mean to suggest that it wouldn't be worth cancelling or changing if the health risk is so big, just that (like with climate change), humans have a disorder when it comes to this sort of thing.
Looks like this is leading to a slow rise in Zika in portugal.
Great.... I'm in Portugal! Dammit.
They will hype it in such a way that a serious threat becomes a joke and ignored by those that see the topic being treated as clickbait.
Are you saying that Zika and hurricanes are not really a big deal but are made to seem so by the press... or that they are a big deal and the press poisons people against properly responding?
They are definitely dangers but instead of calm, logical, limited presentation of the problem, the press goes insane and turn people off to the issue.
I don't really see the issue, here.
Without addressing the Olympics question directly, that question has 2 common and somewhat overlooked fallacies:
* That a current year has the most importance compared to previous years because of its sequence. If we consider how people have thought about their own current year we can see that they also have thought that their current year has the most importance.
* That progress has happened and that progress always occurs and moves in an upwards direction. I suggest that looking at history can give insights into how progress does not inexorably increase and improve year upon year. Initially it may appear nihilistic or anti-progress, but I believe thinking this way gives humans more insight into maintaining fragile societies and to ensure that our worlds do get better, through hard work, and not through some automatic procedure that works via the passage of years.
I hope this helps answer the question in a more helpful and better way.
Then there's the partners of male Olympic athletes (who might either visit to cheer on their partner or get it from sexual contact), tourists, etc.