Vocal Voices

The WHO is in a bit of a pickle. In February this year it declared the Zika virus a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC).

A PHEIC is defined as a situation likely:

i. to constitute a public health risk to other States through the international spread of disease; and

ii. to potentially require a coordinated international response”. This definition implies a situation that: is serious, unusual or unexpected; carries implications for public health beyond the affected State’s national border; and may require immediate international action.

Today an open letter signed by 152 Health Professionals from all over the world has been sent to the UN asking for the games to be postponed or cancelled.

In response the UN has said that the games should go ahead (partly) because a lot of time, effort and money had been spent by the IOC and athletes to make the games a success.

Well, excuse me. Either the Zika virus is a PHEIC or it is not. It cannot be both simultaneously any more than a woman can be a bit pregnant.

I understand that there is no cure for the illness caused by the zika virus,
and with people from all over the world congregating in an affected area
and then returning to their homelands possible affected, this presents a
most serious threat to probably thousands of people. I think that there is
good reason to cancel the Games. The financial losses resulting to Brazil
could be alleviated by contributions from all the countries who were to
take part in the Games.

I think there can be little doubt that the gathering of nations for the Olympics has the potential to exacerbate the spread of the virus to other countries, especially Africa and Asia, where you get mosquitoes.

According to the CDC, it hasn't reached those areas yet ...

http://www.cdc.gov/zika/geo/active-countries.html

So yes, I think there is a case for banning the Olympics, but how far do you go? Do you consider banning all travel to Central and South America? It won't happen, any more than they'll call off Euro 2016 because of the potential threat of terrorism.

It has the potential for disaster, especially for any young female athletes or spectators. I know if I were younger I most definitely would not go, just not worth the risk to a pregnancy, planned or otherwise!

This is a very hard one. Calling off the Olympics at this stage could massively damage Brazil because what they have spent will never generate any income and be a dead loss for them.

On the other hand I've always felt that if it destroys lives then it should not happen.

If I thought that letting it go ahead would allow athletes to make a sensible choice I'd say let it go ahead and let people choose. But I know that the pressure would be intolerable on young women and this would put them at risk. Which I do not want.

There, again, also, the infection of so many from countries which have mosquito's and don't have the disease would be tantamount to simply picking the virus up and spreading it deliberately. Haven't we just had an abject lesson as to what modern travel does with a virus like Ebola?

I always believed that sensible restraint had to be, well, sensible. In this case I believe economics and the politics of cold hard cash will overwhelm any common sense we have on the matter.

Kaz wrote:It has the potential for disaster, especially for any young female athletes or spectators.

That is what the WHO was saying in February, so why the change of heart?

Either the Zika virus is not as devastating as was once though and the WHO made a wrong call, which in itself opens up the accusation of crying wolf and the risk of problems with future outbreaks of infectious diseases. Or the WHO is in awe of big money, big business, big politics and big sport.

I certainly hope my second scenario is not the case, but I am not sure.