Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Concerns for global spread of Zika mean Rio de Janeiro Olympics must not proceed

harvardpublichealthreview.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 213 posts

Re: Concerns for global spread of Zika mean Rio de Janeiro Olympics must not proceed

#131

Post by untog »

VLM wrote: post #116
soneca wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/d...

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.

No, it's like arguing that some people get into car accidents, so more people driving is a bad idea.

Re: Concerns for global spread of Zika mean Rio de Janeiro Olympics must not proceed

#132

Post by elif »

soneca wrote: post #94
shaggy wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ser…

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/d...

Those numbers aren't particularly compelling, especially for the countries the author listed as not having the resources to deal with an outbreak:

Nigeria: 265

India: 4,522

Indonesia: 0

Re: Concerns for global spread of Zika mean Rio de Janeiro Olympics must not proceed

#133

Post by ChuckMcM »

ChicagoBoy11 wrote: post #45

This article is idiotic if the main reason for cancelling the game is actually some "global spread" of Zika. Rio is not some city in the middle of nowhere from which no flights are coming in and out of, and now suddenly this massive international influx of visitors will come in -- it is a world-class city, a financial hub of the largest country in the continent. If we take London 2012 as a benchmark, estimates there…

It is only idiotic if you ignore the emotional response. The author is very afraid of this strain of Zika, they recognize that world wide distribution is inevitable but they seek to address their fear by advocating an action they know "could" be taken, to cancel the games.

Re: Concerns for global spread of Zika mean Rio de Janeiro Olympics must not proceed

#134

Post by dimino »

cven714 wrote: post #15
blowski wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a middle-income tourist who has had multiple holidays in Rio, the closest I've come to being robbed was by a taxi driver that wanted $200 to travel from Corcovado to Pao de Acucar. Seriously, it's like any other city in the world. If you walk around a dodgy area talking on an iPhone, by yourself, especially late at night, then you're asking for trouble. Be sensible and cautious, and Rio is a lovely place to go on…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=if6GLohPq8k Not that incidents like this don't occur in other cities in the world, but it shows that avoiding dodgy areas at night might not be enough.

The only difference between this and what happens to you in NYC is you don't notice.

Re: Concerns for global spread of Zika mean Rio de Janeiro Olympics must not proceed

#135

Post by zbjornson »

untog wrote: post #131
VLM wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, it's like arguing that some people get into car accidents, so more people driving is a bad idea.

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.

Re: Concerns for global spread of Zika mean Rio de Janeiro Olympics must not proceed

#136

Post by chatwinra »

ChicagoBoy11 wrote: post #75
illumen wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

London has the most tourists of any city in the world. No, it's not the same.

I looked up the actual figures after posting -- seems London has about 5x as many international visitors, so you are absolutely right. But, I think in Rio there is also an argument to be made of how many of those "estimated" visitors are actually simply displacing people who would otherwise have travelled to Rio. To your point, if Rio is in fact no set-up to accommodate as many people as London, then a lot of the eff…

"you want an economist making this argument, not a health expert"

You probably want both.

Re: Concerns for global spread of Zika mean Rio de Janeiro Olympics must not proceed

#137

Post by urbannomad »

rorykoehler wrote: post #97
deanCommie wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He said in a dodgy area . Pray tell what is this magical city you live in that does not have a single dodgy area.

Yet to find a dodgy area in Singapore. I think they don't exist.

Not even Geylang?

Re: Concerns for global spread of Zika mean Rio de Janeiro Olympics must not proceed

#138

Post by Tycho »

wyldfire wrote: post #65

Ever since the news of Zika causing microcephaly came up I have been wondering whether it's a net benefit to humanity/homeostasis if we were to exterminate Aedis Aegypti. Can Zika spread among humans already? It would seem like a huge risk to the future of humanity if this infectious disease interferes with reproduction. What's the worst-case scenario for letting Aedis Aegypti live? Is it better than the worst-case s…

is this link actually confirmed yet? from what I heard, other nations which Zika has spread to have not seen an increase in the rate of microcephaly.

Re: Concerns for global spread of Zika mean Rio de Janeiro Olympics must not proceed

#139

Post by MBlume »

untog wrote: post #131
VLM wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, it's like arguing that some people get into car accidents, so more people driving is a bad idea.

Yes, yes it is.

Re: Concerns for global spread of Zika mean Rio de Janeiro Olympics must not proceed

#140

Post by exDM69 »

icebraining wrote: post #40
zodPod wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've thought this too. They pick some of the weirdest places to try to host this stuff. I guess they're trying to bring the areas up or something but if the place can't handle daily life what makes anyone think they can handle a big event like this?

How is Rio a "weird place"? They're in a bad situation right now, as any city with an outbreak of a virus and with a political crisis would be, but it's major world metropolis of 12M people with plenty of international business visitors and a GDP of 200 billion USD. They accommodate 900k tourists during Carnival alone.

I presume that the parent is referring to the locations of the Olympic venues around Rio, which are scattered around the outskirts of the city.
Post reply on HN