SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Harvard Public Health Review has posted a "Special Commentary on the Zika Virus and Public Health Concerns." Amir Attaran, DPhil, LLB, MS. Faculty of Medicine and Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa has submitted a thought-provoking article, Off the Podium: Why Public Health Concerns for Global Spread of Zika Virus Means That Rio de Janeiro's 2016 Olympic Games Must Not Proceed.
Brazil's Zika problem is inconveniently not ending. The outbreak that began in the country's northeast has reached Rio de Janeiro, where it is flourishing. Clinical studies are also mounting that Zika infection is associated not just with pediatric microcephaly and brain damage, but also adult conditions such as Guillain-Barré syndrome and acute disseminated encephalomyelitis, which are debilitating and sometimes fatal.
Simply put, Zika infection is more dangerous, and Brazil's outbreak more extensive, than scientists reckoned a short time ago. Which leads to a bitter truth: the 2016 Olympic and Paralympic Games must be postponed, moved, or both, as a precautionary concession. [emphasis added] There are five reasons.
[Continues...]
First, Rio de Janeiro is more affected by Zika than anyone expected, rendering earlier assumptions of safety obsolete.
[...] Second, although Zika virus was discovered nearly seventy years ago, the viral strain that recently entered Brazil is clearly new, different, and vastly more dangerous than "old" Zika.
[...] Third, while Brazil's Zika inevitably will spread globally — given enough time, viruses always do — it helps nobody to speed that up.
[...] Fourth, when (not if) the Games speed up Zika's spread, the already-urgent job of inventing new technologies to stop it becomes harder.
[...] Fifth, proceeding with the Games violates what the Olympics stand for. The International Olympic Committee writes that "Olympism seeks to create ... social responsibility and respect for universal fundamental ethical principles".
[...] Historically, the 1976 Winter Olympics were moved, and the 1994 Winter Olympics broke with the regular schedule. London, Beijing, Athens and Sydney still possess useable Olympic facilities to take over from Rio. Since the IOC decided in 2014 that the Olympics could be shared between countries, sporting events could even be parceled out between them, turning Zika's negative into an unprecedented positive: the first transcontinental, truly Global Olympics.
The article is backed by 20 footnotes and goes into considerable detail to back up these five points.
One point I did not see made was the fact that Olympic athletes, many of whom have spent their entire lives training for what may well be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, are faced with the prospect of risking their life — and that of their friends and family — in order to participate. What would YOU choose?
Ignoring the threat does not make it go away. Thoughtful, rational discussion of the risks and mitigations are necessary. If changes are to be made, how will they proceed? Should nations act unilaterally and withdraw unless one or more other venues are made available? Should, say, Sydney volunteer to host some (enumerated subset of) the games for those who are concerned about the Zika virus? Maybe postpone the summer Olympics for a year or two? What, practically, can and should be done?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by edIII on Thursday May 12 2016, @01:54AM
The games must, and will, proceed because of the billions of dollars to be made. Those elites have already set everything up, bribed the appropriate people, and prepared the appropriate business vehicles to receive their billions. Lives, health, and safety of the people are secondary to those profits, or S.O.P.
Until it literally starts killing the elites in Brazil, Zika is just a virus of the poor people and can be suffered in the face of billions in profit. The games will go on.....
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by devlux on Thursday May 12 2016, @02:04AM
I dunno about Brazil, but here in Mexico it's starting to get some notice and traction even at "official" levels.
I just had a discussion today about using Gringer's field deployable genome sequencing thing
https://www.nanoporetech.com/ [nanoporetech.com]
to try and map the spread before it gets out of hand.
No one I know has Zika, but the hospitals are starting to report some cases and DEET https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEET [wikipedia.org] is flying off the shelves right now.
As an aside, someone really should get ginger's story submission approved, it's been sitting in queue for some time now.
https://soylentnews.org/submit.pl?op=viewsub&subid=13114¬e=&title=Update%3A+Sequencing+that+Stimulates+the+Sensors [soylentnews.org]
Any reason why it's still sitting there a month and a half later?
(Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday May 12 2016, @06:20AM
How can you map the spread before it gets out of hand? If its spreading, its already out of hand.
You mention Deet. I wonder if there was a public information push to use bug repellent, similar to the public push to use sun screen (or combine the products) if that would be sufficient to to protect the Olympics and just every day people out and about.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Touché) by maxwell demon on Thursday May 12 2016, @02:11PM
Well, unless it's an intentional, controlled spread. </conspiracytheory>
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 12 2016, @02:15PM
I figured gringer's story was sitting until it was needed. It didn't seem to be time-sensitive so it is a good backup when the submission list runs dry.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday May 13 2016, @08:51PM
One of the editors disappeared.
The story will be out on Monday, with Q&A answers and maybe extra material.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday May 12 2016, @03:11AM
Zika virus risk minimal for Australian Olympic team, medical director says [abc.net.au]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 3, Insightful) by devlux on Thursday May 12 2016, @03:15AM
Except this strain is sexually transmitted as well. So that poses a real health problem mosquito or no.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday May 12 2016, @03:27AM
I see you grossly underestimate the sexual abstinence power of Australian athletes.
(grin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Thursday May 12 2016, @06:18PM
The Australian spectators are not athletes, and may not have those enhanced abstinence powers..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 12 2016, @05:04AM
Except this strain is sexually transmitted as well. So that poses a real health problem mosquito or no.
Well then, Mate, just no more sex with mosquitoes, eh? G'day!
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday May 12 2016, @03:26AM
You're not wrong at all, the Olympics are all about the money.
Occasionally I've seen small pieces about how filthy the water is in Rio, but nothing serious, just a setup to tell everyone how the Rio organizing commitee is going to clean everything up.
I come from a country which does well in the outdoor water sports, sailing, rowing, canoeing. Some of these people are multiple World and Olympic champions, and are big stars.
When someone contracts a nasty infection and gets very sick or dies, I wonder what the supine media will say then?
They're the ones who keep the money flowing into the IOC, they need to take some responsibility.
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Thursday May 12 2016, @04:43AM
UK, NZ or AUS?
Some of the sailors have already said that the likely winner will be the person who doesn't get something hooked on their foils.
I feel sorry for the open water swimmers: they are likely to be swimming through untreated sewage.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday May 12 2016, @11:07PM
I'm from NZ. Without checking I think we have 11 boats qualified in rowing, with about 3 gold medals pretty much already won.
I've read the same about the sailing, it will be a lottery.
As far as any of the athletes go, I've got no sympathy for them at all. They've known the water in Rio was going to be raw sewerage for more than a year now and have just shrugged and accepted it as if they've got no power.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 15 2016, @05:47PM
What choice do they have? They can opt out, but the games will still go ahead, and they might not get another chance at an Olympic medal, given the years of training they have put in, that is a huge sacrifice for them to make. A few athletes refusing to compete won't change anything. To get something done would require a number of high-profile countries pulling out completely.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 12 2016, @03:28AM
Just make sure that nasty drawings are put up and some medieval people in black ghost dresses will do the job to keep people out .. :p
(Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday May 12 2016, @03:56AM
The games must, and will, proceed because of the billions of dollars to be made.
Most of that money has already been spent building the venues. Much beyond that, the games lose money every year they are held.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday May 12 2016, @04:59PM
> Much beyond that, the games lose money every year they are held.
The cities lose money
> Most of that money has already been spent building the venues.
Someone is underestimating the advertising dollars. Brazil is likely contractually obligated to reimburse the sponsors and TV stations, plus fines, if the Games are cancelled.
Some highly-neutral judge in NY will enforce the will of the corporations and make sure that "pandemic" is not an acceptable excuse to break the contract without paying the IOC and sponsors.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday May 12 2016, @08:32PM
How much of these alleged obligations are actually owed by Brazil and how much are owed by Coke and T-Mobile and the networks that paid big time for broadcast rights? And who gets the money from advertisers? TV networks or the Olympic committee?
I don't think it matters, because I've never seen a big contract without Force majeure clauses.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.