7 ms·

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

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 are that the olympics yielded a 13% increase in foreign visitors from the previous summer. And that is London, a place where access from other destinations is cheaper, the infrastructure better, and a lot more appealing to U.S. visitors (due to some of the things cited above). It is completely reasonable to expect that the delta in Rio should be roughly the same, if not smaller. The fact is that the"impact" on travel due to the Olympics will be negligible in a city like Rio -- and the economic impact is CERTAINLY negative, unless you are drinking the Kool-Aid of organizers. I'm fine with cancelling the games, but claiming that not doing so will lead to a much riskier global health situation than the one we are already living is hogwash.

maxerickson 10y ago
I would expect the differences you mention to result in a higher delta for Rio, they would contribute to a lower base rate of travel making the event travel relatively larger.
- ChicagoBoy11 10y ago
  When I wrote my original comment I certainly had a model that the base rate of travel was pretty comparable to LDN, but I looked at actual figures from a few years ago and saw that it is in fact 5x smaller. Nevertheless, the 500,000 figure cited would represent a ~25% bump in the number of visitors (if we use 2012 figures). If you consider the area in Brazil most affected by Zika (which would include São Paulo), then this drops to 10%. You then also have to realize that a lot of those visitors displaced people who did not travel to Rio because of the olympics, which is an effect that is widely documented. Taken into account, I think it is plausible to suggest that the real impact of travel that we'd be seeing would be in the low teens or single digits. But I think it is certainly debatable, and I guess this is the only point I really wanted to make in my comment -- that THIS is really the focus if you wanted to argue that the games ought to be suspended, but that the article doesn't address it in the least.
  - unclebucknasty 10y ago
    >You then also have to realize that a lot of those visitors displaced people who did not travel to Rio because of the olympics If, as seems to be the case, you're looking at the anticipated percent increase in travel, then you've already included this displacement.
    - ChicagoBoy11 10y ago
      True, but how do you know how they reached their 500,000 figure?
      - unclebucknasty 10y ago
        I suppose neither of us can assume.
        ChicagoBoy11 10y ago
        Agreed - I really wish they had made it the focus of their article.
  - SCAQTony 10y ago
    Open water swimmers will be swimming in dirty water, sailors all ready have been. The Guardian wrote: Rio 2016: 'Chance of infection very likely' after tests show extent of pollution... Maybe the tourists won't swimming in stagnant water where mosquitoes breed but tourists will be attending nearby while athletes swim in it. https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/dec/02/rio-olympics-2016-water-pollution https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/dec/02/rio-olympics-2...
illumen 10y ago
London has the most tourists of any city in the world. No, it's not the same.
- ChicagoBoy11 10y ago
  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 effect of the games will simply be substituting regular travelers with Olympics watchers. Either way -- the only point I guess I was really trying to make was that the variable of interest is the delta in the actual visitors to Rio -- you want an economist making this argument, not a health expert
  - ececconi 10y ago
    Most people are probably going to stay at Air BnBs. There literally aren't enough hotels there to support the influx of people there. It was a mess during the world cup and that was held throughout the entire country. The only place I could find to stay during the world cup there was an overpriced AirBnb. It was totally worth it, but I've been wondering since how the hell the city is going to handle that many people there at once.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  - chatwinra 10y ago
    "you want an economist making this argument, not a health expert" You probably want both.
rubidium 10y ago
Good point. I agreed with the author until I looked up Brazil's tourism. 5.6 Million people per year in 2015 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tourism_in_Brazil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tourism_in_Brazil).
- komali2 10y ago
  If you're looking at the chart, that's 2012, not 2015.
- Cyph0n 10y ago
  I'm surprised that people need to look up such a thing. Brazil is a hot tourism destination, especially from other South American countries. It's also has a huge economy and has excellent manufacturing capabilities.
- bryanlarsen 10y ago
  The bulk of the tourism to Brazil is either from Central & South America, which already has the virulent strain of Zika, or it's from Europe and northern North America, which does not have the Aedes Aegypta mosquita. Olympics tourism will be much more widespread, including many from vulnerable areas in Africa and Asia. And the OP does not say that it will prevent the spread of Zika, only slow it. Even a few extra months could be valuable -- lots of effort is currently being spent looking for a vaccine.
komali2 10y ago
5,677,000 tourists to Brazil in 2012. So 500,000 is an 8% increase, correct?
- ChicagoBoy11 10y ago
  Well you have to be fair that that is taking ALL of Brazil into account, and some regions are unaffected by this virus -- but the largest builk of it (I think around 80%) are the cities of São Paulo and Rio, which are affected by the virus.
  - marcosdumay 10y ago
    > the largest builk of it (I think around 80%) are the cities of São Paulo and Rio That's only slightly more than the share of the population their region concentrates. Yes, there are places where the disease wasn't identified yet. (Is it because of lack of cases? Who knows?) But those are mostly empty places insulated by bad transportation networks.
- wrsh07 10y ago
  Right, over the whole year not so substantial. Assuming an even distribution of tourism per month (false, but I lack a better model), that's about 500,000 per month. This is essentially doubling the tourism during the events. As the article says, sending tourists into an outbreak of a new virus does not seem prudent.
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.
HillaryBriss 10y ago
This is the claim: Scientists can disagree on how much the mass migration of 500,000 foreigners will accelerate the virus’s global spread and make the pandemic worse—but none can possibly argue that it will slow it down or make things better.
- ChicagoBoy11 10y ago
  Agreed -- but this should have been the focus of the article, which it wasn't, and that's why I think it was irresponsible and poorly written. How much is 500k compared to normal travel to Rio, or to areas of Brazil and the rest of LatAm affected by Zika? What is the geographic distribution of Olympic visitors compared to regular tourists to Rio? What measures has the city taken to curb the impact of Zika that it may not take if the Olympics aren't held? etc. Clearly you have to inspect that 500,000 number carefully, and that's all that matters for this argument. That would've been an honest discussion on this issue, but it is not what the authors chose to concentrate on.
ChuckMcM 10y ago
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.
samstave 10y ago
Ill panic once Madaagascar closes its ports.
- wamsachel 10y ago
  port
bo1024 10y ago
I think claims as strong and vehement as yours ("hogwash") should be backed up more and better than in your post.

maxerickson 10y ago

I would expect the differences you mention to result in a higher delta for Rio, they would contribute to a lower base rate of travel making the event travel relatively larger.

ChicagoBoy11 10y ago
When I wrote my original comment I certainly had a model that the base rate of travel was pretty comparable to LDN, but I looked at actual figures from a few years ago and saw that it is in fact 5x smaller. Nevertheless, the 500,000 figure cited would represent a ~25% bump in the number of visitors (if we use 2012 figures). If you consider the area in Brazil most affected by Zika (which would include São Paulo), then this drops to 10%. You then also have to realize that a lot of those visitors displaced people who did not travel to Rio because of the olympics, which is an effect that is widely documented. Taken into account, I think it is plausible to suggest that the real impact of travel that we'd be seeing would be in the low teens or single digits. But I think it is certainly debatable, and I guess this is the only point I really wanted to make in my comment -- that THIS is really the focus if you wanted to argue that the games ought to be suspended, but that the article doesn't address it in the least.
- unclebucknasty 10y ago
  >You then also have to realize that a lot of those visitors displaced people who did not travel to Rio because of the olympics If, as seems to be the case, you're looking at the anticipated percent increase in travel, then you've already included this displacement.
  - ChicagoBoy11 10y ago
    True, but how do you know how they reached their 500,000 figure?
    - unclebucknasty 10y ago
      I suppose neither of us can assume.
      - ChicagoBoy11 10y ago
        Agreed - I really wish they had made it the focus of their article.
- SCAQTony 10y ago
  Open water swimmers will be swimming in dirty water, sailors all ready have been. The Guardian wrote: Rio 2016: 'Chance of infection very likely' after tests show extent of pollution... Maybe the tourists won't swimming in stagnant water where mosquitoes breed but tourists will be attending nearby while athletes swim in it. https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/dec/02/rio-olympics-2016-water-pollution https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/dec/02/rio-olympics-2...

illumen 10y ago

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

ChicagoBoy11 10y ago
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 effect of the games will simply be substituting regular travelers with Olympics watchers. Either way -- the only point I guess I was really trying to make was that the variable of interest is the delta in the actual visitors to Rio -- you want an economist making this argument, not a health expert
- ececconi 10y ago
  Most people are probably going to stay at Air BnBs. There literally aren't enough hotels there to support the influx of people there. It was a mess during the world cup and that was held throughout the entire country. The only place I could find to stay during the world cup there was an overpriced AirBnb. It was totally worth it, but I've been wondering since how the hell the city is going to handle that many people there at once.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- chatwinra 10y ago
  "you want an economist making this argument, not a health expert" You probably want both.

rubidium 10y ago

Good point. I agreed with the author until I looked up Brazil's tourism. 5.6 Million people per year in 2015 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tourism_in_Brazil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tourism_in_Brazil).

komali2 10y ago
If you're looking at the chart, that's 2012, not 2015.
Cyph0n 10y ago
I'm surprised that people need to look up such a thing. Brazil is a hot tourism destination, especially from other South American countries. It's also has a huge economy and has excellent manufacturing capabilities.
bryanlarsen 10y ago
The bulk of the tourism to Brazil is either from Central & South America, which already has the virulent strain of Zika, or it's from Europe and northern North America, which does not have the Aedes Aegypta mosquita. Olympics tourism will be much more widespread, including many from vulnerable areas in Africa and Asia. And the OP does not say that it will prevent the spread of Zika, only slow it. Even a few extra months could be valuable -- lots of effort is currently being spent looking for a vaccine.

komali2 10y ago

5,677,000 tourists to Brazil in 2012. So 500,000 is an 8% increase, correct?

ChicagoBoy11 10y ago
Well you have to be fair that that is taking ALL of Brazil into account, and some regions are unaffected by this virus -- but the largest builk of it (I think around 80%) are the cities of São Paulo and Rio, which are affected by the virus.
- marcosdumay 10y ago
  > the largest builk of it (I think around 80%) are the cities of São Paulo and Rio That's only slightly more than the share of the population their region concentrates. Yes, there are places where the disease wasn't identified yet. (Is it because of lack of cases? Who knows?) But those are mostly empty places insulated by bad transportation networks.
wrsh07 10y ago
Right, over the whole year not so substantial. Assuming an even distribution of tourism per month (false, but I lack a better model), that's about 500,000 per month. This is essentially doubling the tourism during the events. As the article says, sending tourists into an outbreak of a new virus does not seem prudent.

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.

HillaryBriss 10y ago

This is the claim: Scientists can disagree on how much the mass migration of 500,000 foreigners will accelerate the virus’s global spread and make the pandemic worse—but none can possibly argue that it will slow it down or make things better.

ChicagoBoy11 10y ago
Agreed -- but this should have been the focus of the article, which it wasn't, and that's why I think it was irresponsible and poorly written. How much is 500k compared to normal travel to Rio, or to areas of Brazil and the rest of LatAm affected by Zika? What is the geographic distribution of Olympic visitors compared to regular tourists to Rio? What measures has the city taken to curb the impact of Zika that it may not take if the Olympics aren't held? etc. Clearly you have to inspect that 500,000 number carefully, and that's all that matters for this argument. That would've been an honest discussion on this issue, but it is not what the authors chose to concentrate on.

ChuckMcM 10y ago

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.

samstave 10y ago

Ill panic once Madaagascar closes its ports.

wamsachel 10y ago
port

bo1024 10y ago

I think claims as strong and vehement as yours ("hogwash") should be backed up more and better than in your post.