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: 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.