When it comes to the Zika virus and the Olympics, what should you believe? Whom should you trust?
Brazilian officials insist Rio de Janeiro will be safe for Olympic visitors this summer. And amid political and economic chaos, they boast about mosquito-fighting efforts. The International Olympic Committee remains confident that Rio will be ready to welcome athletes and visitors in August. And the committee cites expert advice and work with the World Health Organization as reasons for its optimism.
But with 84 days until the Games begin, Brazil and the IOC have become fully immersed in the business of creating their own reality. It’s part of the Olympic build-up.
Step back and take a wider perspective, beyond Brazilian and IOC officials with an awful lot of skin in the Games, and the Zika situation looks much different and more worrisome.
On Thursday, the WHO recommended that Olympic athletes and visitors avoid poor and overcrowded parts of Rio to reduce their risk of Zika infection. Considering that large swaths of the city are poor and overcrowded, it’s almost laughable advice.
Earlier this week, US women’s soccer goalie Hope Solo told CNBC she was going to Rio “begrudgingly’’ and plans “to take every precaution necessary.’’ Outside of practice and games, Solo isn’t sure she will leave her hotel room.
With mosquitos in mind, US rowers will be wearing specially designed long-sleeved training gear. South Korean athletes will be provided team uniforms infused with insect repellent.
And then there is the alarm raised in Canada.
Amir Attaran, a member of the Medicine and Law faculty at the University of Ottawa, recently authored a piece for the Harvard Public Health Review in which he argued that the Olympics should be postponed or moved because of the Zika threat. With 500,000 visitors expected in Brazil for the Games, he worries about the global spread of the mosquito-borne illness.
Would it be grossly irresponsible for Rio de Janeiro to host the Summer Games in August? The way Attaran sees it, the answer unequivocally is yes.
“Rio is not on the fringe of the epidemic,’’ said Attaran when reached by phone. “It is the heart of the epidemic. But for the Olympics, would anyone recommend sending half a million people into an epidemic zone? Of course not. What is so special about the Olympics that we set reason aside?’’
There is no good answer to that question, and it is one that could be asked before a lot of Olympics. Whether it’s the human rights abuses by host countries or the skyrocketing costs of venues, the Games have a way of clouding judgment.
With the Zika virus and the Olympics, others share Attaran’s perspective.
When asked if the IOC has an ethical obligation to postpone or move the Rio Games, Art Caplan, head of medical ethics at NYU Langone Medical Center, said, “I still think they do. But it’s clear they won’t. They’re not making any noises that way.
“Assembling a huge number of people in the middle of that outbreak where they could infect one another or bring the disease back home or get it into the blood supply back home, is a pretty big public health risk.
“People say, ‘What about Dengue fever and other things?’ I get that. But this disease takes a very bad toll on babies, so it’s of special significance.’’
The case Attaran puts forward is simple. In Rio, he writes, Zika is worse than anyone anticipated, and any IOC claims that the city will be a “safe environment’’ is speculation, not fact. Attaran cautions that speeding up the global spread of Zika will mean a tougher game of catchup for the researchers working on ways to test, treat, and prevent it.
Most worrisome? Attaran emphasizes that all it takes is one infected foreign traveler to start an immense international ripple effect.
Last week, Major League Baseball moved its two-game series between the Marlins and Pirates from Puerto Rico to Miami because of concerns about Zika. So now there’s precedent for moving a sports event, though two baseball games are much easier to relocate than an Olympic Games.
If social responsibility and medical ethics trumped financial interests and investments of time, energy, and political capital, postponing or moving the Olympics at this late date wouldn’t seem like such an unreasonable ask. And, rightly so, Attaran wonders where Olympic sponsors stand. McDonald’s, Coca-Cola, Visa, and other big companies all have a considerable stake in Rio de Janeiro successfully pulling off the Games.
“The IOC is in a disgraceful conflict of interest,’’ said Attaran. “The Olympics are a multibillion-dollar business . . . There’s a lot of money riding on it for these companies. It is appalling business ethics for these companies. All the companies participating are doing so knowing that they could be contributing to a global epidemic of brain-damaged children.
“If these companies were ethical, they would demand that the IOC postpone or move the Games. I’m waiting to see if they’re ethical.’’
When asked specifically about the points Attaran raised, the IOC e-mailed its standard response to Zika concerns.
The committee emphasized that it is following the guidance of the WHO and working with “our partners in Rio on measures to deal with the pools of stagnant water around the Olympic venues, where the mosquitos breed, to minimize the risk of visitors coming into contact with them.’’
Additionally, the IOC pointed out, the Games will take place during Brazil’s winter months when cooler, drier weather should reduce the prevalence of mosquitos.
Anyone who has followed the Zika virus and the Olympics for the past few months has heard the IOC’s take before. That doesn’t make it any more comforting or convincing.
So, what’s next? In all likelihood, the countdown to Rio will continue as planned with enthusiastic, official daily reports on the Olympic torch relay. And if Attaran’s alarm rings true, the real cost of the Rio Games may not be known until nine, 10 or 11 months after the Closing Ceremony.
