Agreed -- but this should have been the focus of the article, which it wasn&#x27;t, and that&#x27;s why I think it was irresponsible and poorly written. How much is 500k compared to normal travel to Rio, or to areas of Brazil and the rest of LatAm affected by Zika? What is the geographic distribution of Olympic visitors compared to regular tourists to Rio? What measures has the city taken to curb the impact of Zika that it may not take if the Olympics aren&#x27;t held? etc.<p>Clearly you have to inspect that 500,000 number carefully, and that&#x27;s all that matters for this argument. That would&#x27;ve been an honest discussion on this issue, but it is not what the authors chose to concentrate on.