Could they get London up and running in 6 months?
Hi again. Looks like you’re still using an ad blocker. Please turn it off in order to continue into Forbes’ ad-light experience.
lol, nope!
They didn't cancel the Atlanta games and there was a bombing. Oops, should have cancelled those unsafe games.
Olympics will be cancelled due to shortage of clean athletes (more likely).
couldn't read it either.
London probably could host.
Athens also.
Los Angeles could probably host the games any year as nothing would need to be built.
Atlanta Bombing wrote:
They didn't cancel the Atlanta games and there was a bombing. Oops, should have cancelled those unsafe games.
Nor were the '72 Games cancelled after a bunch of terrorists murdered eleven people.
The difference is that those events took place while the games were going on, the Rio Olympics aren't for another 6 months so there is still time to move the Olympics.
ZERO chance of moving or cancelling the OG due to Zika virus.
Nothing to see here. Move along to your next scheduled panic attack.
Agree. Brazil had something like 150 cases of microcephaly per year from 2010-2015 among about 3 million births per year. The U.S. has had about 25,000 cases of microcephaly per year among about 4 million births per year.
Now there is a spike in microcephaly cases in Brazil, a country with huge amounts of untreated drinking water, underdeveloped regulation of pesticides, and a notoriously bad medical reporting history (all of which have been linked to microcephaly). Something doesn't add up...
We'd all be better off concentrating efforts on the half million people who die from malaria each year.
stochastic_track wrote:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/leeigel/2016/02/03/zika-outbreak-means-it-is-now-time-to-cancel-rio-olympics/#2715e4857a0b5d370ec54f92It's not looking good at all.
Only Tokyo and L.A. have the ability to host the Summer Olympics with one weeks notice.
The OP is posting to some idiot blogging on Forbes.
If anything, I think they 100% should have the game in Brazil. It will make people pay attnetion to the virus which is largely hurting the poor.
The virus is largely a non issue unless you are pregnant. So what's the big deal. IF you go down there, don't get knocked up. It's not really an issue for fans/athletes if they simply don't get pregnant.
It's a real issue for people in Brazil but cancelling the Olympics is not the way to go.
rojo wrote:
The virus is largely a non issue unless you are pregnant.
FALSE
ZIKA is an STD. A male American athlete could get bitten and once he gets home transmit it to his pregnant wife.
The US can't even control Chipotle. How would you expect the US to stop Zika Virus?
Ditto.
Aridzona wrote:
Hi again. Looks like you’re still using an ad blocker. Please turn it off in order to continue into Forbes’ ad-light experience.
lol, nope!
Hardware wrote:
Ditto.
Aridzona wrote:Hi again. Looks like you’re still using an ad blocker. Please turn it off in order to continue into Forbes’ ad-light experience.
lol, nope!
It's quite funny. Forbes had MALWARE issues a couple of days after they started their adblock block.
There is a reason people are using adblock. And it's not ads.
rojo wrote:
The OP is posting to some idiot blogging on Forbes.
If anything, I think they 100% should have the game in Brazil. It will make people pay attnetion to the virus which is largely hurting the poor.
The virus is largely a non issue unless you are pregnant. So what's the big deal. IF you go down there, don't get knocked up. It's not really an issue for fans/athletes if they simply don't get pregnant.
It's a real issue for people in Brazil but cancelling the Olympics is not the way to go.
The concern isn't so much acquiring the virus at the games, it's transporting it to damn near every country across the globe post the games. Sure fire way to expose 80% of the global population within 6 months after Rio. That's a lot of pregnant ladies.
I'm not saying they should cancel the games. But to dismiss the idea flat out because the messenger doesn't carry a lot of cache (a blogger as you say) is fairly ignorant to the threat.
feldman wrote:
The concern isn't so much acquiring the virus at the games, it's transporting it to damn near every country across the globe post the games. Sure fire way to expose 80% of the global population within 6 months after Rio. That's a lot of pregnant ladies.
I'm not saying they should cancel the games. But to dismiss the idea flat out because the messenger doesn't carry a lot of cache (a blogger as you say) is fairly ignorant to the threat.
YUP! This. The thousands and thousands of fans and athletes would spread the virus back home.
And no one knows at this time how long the virus can stay in one's system upon contraction, correct?