6 ms·

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.

by shaggy 10y 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.

ChicagoBoy11 10y 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.
- stcredzero 10y ago
  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'm sorry, but there seems to be a bit of a logical disconnect here. This looks like a knee-jerk pattern match on the "all it takes" phrase. My understanding is that this is factual in this case. That is how it works with a lot of diseases -- with many kinds of self-replicators -- all it takes is one. That is how it works with various insect and fungal blights that have ravaged California forests. A public awareness of the relative risks is a public good. Single patients flown to the US from the Ebola stricken regions did not spread infection, because of the particulars of infection mechanisms. Zika can be spread by mosquito. If the Olympics increase the traffic to resource-thin countries with populations of the right kind of mosquito, this should be considered carefully.
saiya-jin 10y 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.
soneca 10y 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/dadosefatos/anuario/downloads_anuario/Anuario_Estatistico_de_Turismo_2016_Ano_base_2015_Excel.pdf http://www.dadosefatos.turismo.gov.br/export/sites/default/d...
- VLM 10y ago
  So sending an even larger influx into an outbreak is good... why exactly? Its like arguing that some subset of people drive drunk right now, therefore it would be a great idea if more people would drive drunk this summer.
  - untog 10y ago
    No, it's like arguing that some people get into car accidents, so more people driving is a bad idea.
    - zbjornson 10y ago
      On the surface that's not a bad argument. It becomes a bad argument at certain scales though -- the difference between a 1% and a 100% increase matters. The point at which it matters depends in part on the transmissibility of the disease, which is low for zika.
    - MBlume 10y ago
      Yes, yes it is.
    - Ensorceled 10y ago
      Yes. It's why that argument is made about airport security all the time, for instance by BloomBerg: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-11-18/airport-security-is-killing-us http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-11-18/airport-se...
    - SilasX 10y ago
      Devil's advocate: I think the argument is that the damage of the disease is disproportional to the people exposed, because the increased pairs of interactions are what can make it spread fast. So doubling the number of people congregated in Rio won't just double the danger, but quadruple it. If car accidents obeyed a similar dynamic -- where they increase (much) more than proportionally to the number of vehicle-miles driven, we should be similarly more cautious about additional drivers.
1bm 10y 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.

by shaggy 10y ago

ChicagoBoy11 10y 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.

stcredzero 10y ago
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'm sorry, but there seems to be a bit of a logical disconnect here. This looks like a knee-jerk pattern match on the "all it takes" phrase. My understanding is that this is factual in this case. That is how it works with a lot of diseases -- with many kinds of self-replicators -- all it takes is one. That is how it works with various insect and fungal blights that have ravaged California forests. A public awareness of the relative risks is a public good. Single patients flown to the US from the Ebola stricken regions did not spread infection, because of the particulars of infection mechanisms. Zika can be spread by mosquito. If the Olympics increase the traffic to resource-thin countries with populations of the right kind of mosquito, this should be considered carefully.

saiya-jin 10y 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.

soneca 10y 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/dadosefatos/anuario/downloads_anuario/Anuario_Estatistico_de_Turismo_2016_Ano_base_2015_Excel.pdf http://www.dadosefatos.turismo.gov.br/export/sites/default/d...

VLM 10y ago
So sending an even larger influx into an outbreak is good... why exactly? Its like arguing that some subset of people drive drunk right now, therefore it would be a great idea if more people would drive drunk this summer.
- untog 10y ago
  No, it's like arguing that some people get into car accidents, so more people driving is a bad idea.
  - zbjornson 10y ago
    On the surface that's not a bad argument. It becomes a bad argument at certain scales though -- the difference between a 1% and a 100% increase matters. The point at which it matters depends in part on the transmissibility of the disease, which is low for zika.
  - MBlume 10y ago
    Yes, yes it is.
  - Ensorceled 10y ago
    Yes. It's why that argument is made about airport security all the time, for instance by BloomBerg: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-11-18/airport-security-is-killing-us http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-11-18/airport-se...
  - SilasX 10y ago
    Devil's advocate: I think the argument is that the damage of the disease is disproportional to the people exposed, because the increased pairs of interactions are what can make it spread fast. So doubling the number of people congregated in Rio won't just double the danger, but quadruple it. If car accidents obeyed a similar dynamic -- where they increase (much) more than proportionally to the number of vehicle-miles driven, we should be similarly more cautious about additional drivers.

1bm 10y 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.