Call for the Olympics to be postponed.
- Thread starter John40
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 May 2010
- Posts
- 23,750
- Location
- London
It's not the effect it has on the individual, but the effects it has causing deformities in kids.
Ahhhh, that makes more sense. I was lookin at mortality rates, which were basically nil
Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 77,864
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
All it takes is 9 months later with deformed babies all over the world and the common link is that they all went to Rio Olympics. As opposed to it fairly localised right now.
It's not the people going to the Olympics that bothers me, it's the people they infect. We don't know what range of insects can carry Zika; if it's transferred to other mosquito zones, Zika has the potential to be an AIDS scale public health disaster - very different in its impacts but devastating none the less - or not, we don't know.
Now, we should expect Zika to spread globally eventually anyway but a few years delay means the chance to develop vaccines, understand the biology of the disease's side effects, and develop tests and treatments for pregnant women.
Rio is far too risky; it should be cancelled, moved to another country, or postponed.
Are you telling me the whole of the Western world has stopped travelling to Brazil because of the Zika virus? And the people of South America have stayed within their own continent?
I would expect the effect of the Olympics would be insignificant in comparison to general travel in and out of the region.
I would expect the effect of the Olympics would be insignificant in comparison to general travel in and out of the region.
No, there will be spread, arguably we should be doing more about that but it's going to carry on regardless.
The olympics are expected to bring over half a million extra visitors to Rio, that's about a 10% increase in tourism* to Brazil, which may not seems like much, but it's also about the countries that people are coming from. The Olympics is a very global event so you get visitors from almost every country on earth, and that means that it has a very different risk profile to normal tourism.
* - actually, I think Zika has reduced tourism to Brazil so it's probably a bit higher.
As stated, insignificant then. If it is a genuine issue scientists should be advising on considerable limits on travel to the region generally rather than just postponing the Olympics. If a virus is going to spread, a 10% (one-off annually) reduction in visitors is not going to have much of an impact.
Thats plain ridiculous.
The Olympics is not going to make an iota of difference should it even ever become more than it is
Oh dear, a massively compact event with so many visitors from all over the world, in a city that even while they try to contain it continues ti spread, is far from insignificant.
And they have advised against traveling for pregnant women.
Mainly as the uk doesn't have the mosquito that carries it, so less risk of it spreading to us.
And how do you know these aren't genuine scientists? Do you even know who they are or their backgrounds?
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,471
Let the games go ahead, just no spectators from outside the continent 
In other news, 23 samples retested from London's set of 250 have proven positive for performance enhancing drugs.
When will we hear who is affected?
In other news, 23 samples retested from London's set of 250 have proven positive for performance enhancing drugs.
When will we hear who is affected?
If 5m people annually from outside Brazil are already travelling to the region and being exposed to the virus, an additional 500,000 is not going to make much of an impact is it if risk of the virus spreading is already a significant risk.
Also if the risk of transmission is mainly via insects, I am not sure of the relevance of it being a compact event.
You misread the post.
Last edited: