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&#x27;s hardly a line in the article about that -- just the  500,000 number is thrown around with absolutely no citation.<p>Instead,the article does some of the worst things we&#x27;d expect from scientists with sentences like &quot;All it takes is one infected traveler&quot; -- this is fear-mongering and irresponsible and the author should be ashamed of that comment.<p>I maintain that it is not a careful, reasoned argument about the issue.