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, @04:15AM
But UNLIKE ebola, Zika doesn't kill a huge percentage of the people who catch it.
Authorities could just tell people to avoid sex, and shift the blame to them if they don't. (Have we seen this movie before)?
A crash program to find a vaccine, like the multiple efforts for Ebola, would, under those circumstances probably end up getting put off, potentially for many budget cycles.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by patella.whack on Thursday May 12 2016, @07:18AM
It's a good point re: mortality, and that's an interesting suggestion about possible spin.
I wonder how effective that spin might be in the current political climate there, where corruption is front-and-center. But no matter, the Games will most certainly go on.
Someone above pointed out that the Games are mostly a financial loss to the host country. On the other hand they serve as a unifying morale booster for that country too. (see China). I'm not so sure that is going to occur in Brazil to the extent that their government desires because of the level of unrest.
(Score: 2) by zocalo on Thursday May 12 2016, @10:47AM
That's another potential risk for foreign athletes and spectators considering or committed to going to the games. There have already been clashes over the impeachment (which has also been described as a defacto coup d'etat) of President Rouseff with the recent announcement that she will face a trial, despite the country's AG ruling there was no grounds for it, and be replaced by the countries VP, at least as an interim measure, then things could rapidly get out of hand. Given that the trial is expected to last 180 days and includes the entire period the games are scheduled for, civil unrest or worse in the country during the games doesn't seem all that unlikely. I'd expect tight security regardless, which will probably help keep such things far away from the actual games, but given visitors will almost certainly want to visit areas away from the stadia it's hard to imagine that no one is going to get caught up in things by virtue of just being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 2) by patella.whack on Thursday May 12 2016, @11:25AM
thanks for the addt'l detail.
Re: wrong place wrong time, I wonder what kind of leakage from favelas (which seem to boiling over more than previously) will protrude upon what is essentially a different state with a different government: ie. metro Rio & the stadia.
I'm not sure foreigners are in danger of anything, really, including Zika, if they stick to the area that the gov't is doing its best to keep 'clean.' Of course the pick-pocket MO will still be in full effect.
(Score: 2) by zocalo on Thursday May 12 2016, @11:52AM
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!