Lancet ID: Zika virus and the 2016 Olympic Games

[tetano]

A recent Editorial[SUP]1[/SUP] in The Lancet Infectious Diseases used erroneous reasoning to argue that Zika virus poses no worry for the Rio de Janeiro Olympics?namely, that 92% of Zika cases are far away from Rio (wrong: Rio de Janeiro state has 29% of probable Zika cases, more than anywhere else in Brazil[SUP]2[/SUP]); that campylobacter is more dangerous (irrelevant: so is dynamite); that just three known travellers were infected with dengue virus during Brazil's 2014 World Cup (glib: Brazil's ruinous Zika virus outbreak began with just one infected traveller[SUP]3[/SUP]); and that worrying is pointless anyway because Zika virus is already found in dozens of countries (fatalistic: by that logic it would never be worth intervening to slow a disease's spread). Tastelessly the Editorial opens with a Nazi reference?the reductio ad Hitlerum seldom foreshadowing a wise analysis to come?and concludes with this: ?Zika virus represents a minimal threat to games visitors?.
But how can anyone be so narrow minded to think only about games visitors? Actually Rio's Olympics are a risk to global health, for seven reasons.

...


full text

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(16)30230-4/fulltext

 

[tetano]

[h=1]Zika virus and the 2016 Olympic Games ? Editors' reply[/h] Amir Attaran makes some valuable points in his response to our Editorial on the Zika virus risk associated with the 2016 Olympic and Paralympic Games in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.[SUP]1[/SUP]
We agree that Rio de Janeiro state has more probable Zika virus cases than any other state of Brazil. However, the 92% figure cited in the Editorial related to the proportion of confirmed cases of Zika virus-associated microcephaly found in the Northeast Region. Latest figures show that 86% of such cases are in the Northeast Region, whereas only 6?6% are in the Southeast Region, of which Rio is part.[SUP]2[/SUP] This disparity between numbers of cases of Zika virus infection and of microcephaly suggests variations in case detection or notification, or, perhaps, that unknown cofactors contribute to manifestation of microcephaly. The only Nazi reference in the Editorial is to a fictional character. We see no issues of taste in accurate description of that character.
The Editorial clearly considers the risk that the games pose for global dissemination of Zika virus, reaching the conclusion that the games represent little additional risk compared with routine travel. By contrast, Attaran contends that ?Rio's Olympics are a risk to global health? because, among other reasons, ?Olympic visitors have unsurpassed disease-spreading capacity because they come from every country in the world?. Fortunately, an objective, evidence-based approach can throw light on this difference of opinion.

..

full text

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(16)30266-3/fulltext