This seems like the worst outcome for Japan and best outcome for the IOC. Japan incurs all the cost of hosting the Olympics while reaping none of the tourist yen, while the IOC gets paid the broadcasting fee. At this point the optimal outcome for Japan is probably to cancel the game altogether.
Is it an example of the political pull of the IOC? The Asian culture of face-saving? Or plain old sunk cost fallacy? I honestly don't know.
I visited Japan a few months before the pandemic hit and it is really sad thinking back now. There was a real effort from the airport in Tokyo to as far away as Osaka and Kyoto accommodating for foreign languages and really showing off Japanese culture. At the time it felt like I was being practised on - so sad to see all that effort go to waste.
That also was related to the general idea that the Tokyo Olympics were meant as a Japan Rebirth after Fukushima, much like the 1964 Olympics were considered a Rebirth of a modern Japan after WW2.
This is far-fetched argument by who involved Tokyo Olympic. If they really think to support Tohoku area that damaged from tsunami/nuclear event, Tokyo, the most crowded and developed city, shouldn't be chosen.
You are aware that we have a global pandemic right?
So if even you won't treat everyone as a possible threat, the chance that 'guests' bring in the virus is high. Since Japan is an island, most people will fly there by plane and most people will be inside the plane for at least 6 hours+. Even if at half capacity the chance that there is 1 infectious person/ person becoming infectious is high.
All Tests are snapshots of whether or not your infectious at time X.
Quick tests are only valid for 6 hours since they only check whether you are infectious.
PCR Tests are more accurate but take some time to get the results. Thus there is a chance to get infected afterwards and before the flight.
So all 'guests' would need to go into quarantine for 5 days just to make sure that there is no infection. Who is going to house them? Is it feasable to have large numbers of foreigners quarantined in Japan? Will they follow the rules? Will they were a mask? Looking at the news and the rule bending rule breaking that is happening in the west regarding the pandemic gives litte hope.
Furthermore, to protect your own country from a new outbreak is it really a wise decision to add another thousands of people into an already overcrowded city?
EDIT: Adding to that, since the whole world is not yet vaccinated mutations are a real threat, even in the US they found 2 new mutations in the past weeks. The later even seems to be immun to the vaccinations.
Thus to not have to cancel the whole event and all 'guest' bookings one could also argue that the best way is to minimize the risk, chaos, loss. Now everyone can plan around the restrictions and further cancelations are less likely.
I am discriminated against because I can't just move to America. I need a visa to live there and Americans don't. Discrimination! I am discriminated against because I am not considered for jobs I don't have the skills to perform. It's fine to discriminate under sensible circumstances, such as stopping millions of people coming to your country during a pandemic.
> The virus is there already, since quite a while.
Sure but adding possible new clusters, is not that good of an idea.
Furthermore, the chances that additional strains arrive there is higher. Unfortunately the Britisch strain is spreading now in Tokyo.
> What kind of tests are available that can show if you're infectuous? That would be really helpful to tackle the situation. So far, I just know about tests that can detect the presence of the virus or antibodies.
>They are accurate in terms of detecting smallest leftovers of the virus, but not in detecting if someone is infectious.
Agree
> I fail to understand how a 'foreigner' is a bigger threat (in terms of 'protection from a new outbreak') than the locals already carrying the virus and being responsible for all the recent cases (there is a staggering 22% positivity rate in Tokyo today - without these 'dangerous' foreigners).
To stop a pandemic you need to decrease mobility, to do that we had/have lockdowns. Some countries have closed their borders just like Japan (recently) and New Zealand.
The Japanese Government has decided to conduct the Olympic games this Summer with only the Atheles and Trainers getting entry.
"Guests"/ Tourists would not be limited to the games but would like to go sightseeing etc. thereby increasing the amount of people moving around and creating additional / preventable clusters. Where do you have that 22% positivy rate from? This is the total oposite of what the offical stats say. https://stopcovid19.metro.tokyo.lg.jp/en/ I know government stats should be taken with a pinch salt. But a positivity rate of 22% would not be posible to hide, since 22% of the kanto region is 16million people....
> Is discrimination okay, if there are 'reasons' for it? Is discrimination okay, if a majority agrees with it?
So is New Zealand discrimanting against foreigners for having a entry stop? Japan did the same thing New Zealand/Australia and gave the olympic teams an exception.
Furthermore, a countries purpose is to protect their citizins whether they are native or foreign. What is the best and most effective way as an Island nation to reduce the risk and danger to their populace? It is to temporarily halt the issuence of new Visa / Tourist Visa included.
And is discrimination ok? It is difficult to say here are two examples: Purely Fiction
Country X says no entry to African Americans, because they are taller than the populace. This would be not OK
Country Y temporary bans entry to the whole world because of a global pandemic. This would be OK since the goal is not discrimation but the reduction of movement of people.
Both can be argued to be discrimination but both have a different intention. Thus I would say that there is no absolute answer, as is True or False. There are greyzones inbetween. I think the intend and purpose matters as well as who is affected - everyone is affected equaly vs a single group of people. Yes you could define 98% of the world as a single group of people , but still...
BTW if for example Japan would ban all foreigners, because foreigners have a different hair colour, or because they look different in general. Then I would argue against that policy.
Um, can't we give those narrative a break even in the time of peril like this? It's just so out of context. It's global Pandemic dude! Controlling the risk from outsiders is the protocol in EVERY COUNTRY right now.
They host the Olympic, they seriously WANT everyone from every country to be in their country! and it's just can't happened right now.
If the situation is normal, and they refuse to let foreigner in, then we'll talk.
So if the vast majority of people survive, we should just let it rip?
What would happen if we would let it rip:
- Without any counter measures such as masks or lockdowns the rate of infection would be significantly higher resulting
- Tens of millions more dead (https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/06/09/8724419...) The link shows projections done last year in May. Mutations that spread more such as B1.117 (British variant) are not even in this consideration
- More people with long term effects and need for rehabilitation, which will lead to a significant influx on the health care system in third world countries such as the USA were even now Kickstarter ist the most widely used insurance service....
Even if only 1.5% die across all age groups accross the world that would still be 117.000.000 million people.
Now the population of people above the age of 65 is 700.000.000 here the mortality rate is higher. Let's be conservative at say 20% ( since there is also an increase between ages 65 and 75+) that would be 140.000.000 Deaths
Now for the age group below age 65 and acording to stats from 2016 are 16% of the world population obese . Obese people just like older people have a higher risk of dying from covid than healthy people. 16% from 7. billion ( deducted the above 65% since they already have a higher chance) That would be 1.120.000.000 people that would have a conservative risk to die of covid of 20% = 224.000.000
total death toll = 140.000.000 + 224.000.000 + 88.500.000 (5.9bil healthy people with death chance of 1.5%) = 450.000.000
By no means are these number accurate but they show about what kind of dimension we talk about when we talk about letting it rip. Important to not is that the 5.9 billion people are not all healthy so in reality that number would be much higher.
The flu itself kill yearly 650.000 people globally ,.. so every one who says that covid19 is not dangerous is an idiot.
>So if the vast majority of people survive, we should just let it rip?
No, we should still attempt to fight it but doing so without lockdown/masks.
lockdown/masks cause misery which is should not be ignored.
> Without any counter measures such as masks or lockdowns the rate of infection would be significantly higher resulting - Tens of millions more dead
South Dakota never lockdown nor have mask mandate
Sweeden as well.
Florida mostly not lockdown
They are doing fine.
There are no significant difference between place that doing lockdown/mask compared to place that don't.
The way covid death is counted right now is highly misleading because it including everything remotely related to covid, for example death due to heart attack while being positive for covid is counted as covid death.
Death is not the sole metric, yes reducing death is a good thing but if it attempted by increasing misery due to lockdown then I don't want it.
> The connotation of discern is one of perceptive recognition of non-obvious underlying truth; the connotation of discriminate (since the 1860s) is quite the opposite, being more of an unjust imposition of difference where none is deserved.
(emphasis mine)
The key here is that discrimination is imposing different treatment of people "where none is deserved." When a pandemic is happening, you're not imposing "different" (and unjust) treatment upon foreign visitors - you're imposing necessary treatment as a precaution to help reduce the spread of the virus. This is a good thing that we want to do, not an unjust thing.
My understanding is that the problem are broadcasters and sponsors.
If Japan pulls the plug, they are likely on the hook to pay back billions to broadcasters and sponsors. So thinking purely in terms of USD, it might actually be cheaper to press forward than to cancel the games.
That's a fair point, but they might just be put of luck. They'll have to live with world championships and similar. You can't exactly run a project at a multi billion dollar loss just because you want to be fair to a small number of people sadly.
> You can’t exactly run a project at a multi billion dollar loss
What is the cost of running the games though?
I assume (with absolutely no evidence) that the costs would be heavily skewed towards facilities setup and infrastructure. That’s a sunk fixed cost.
I’m sure there is a large security and labor cost when the games are going on. I assume this would be a variable cost that would be reduced without spectators.
If the majority of the cost has already been spent and it’s a relatively small (perhaps less than a few hundred million dollars) cost to conduct the games, why not go through with it? Maybe running a limited games could be a compromise?
I suppose all of the Tokyo 2020 merchandise is already written off and useless.
I acknowledge the whole calculus changes with public health and the pandemic. I’m addressing money as the issue.
Anyways I’m a huge fan of all Olympic events, and the Olympics is the only sporting event(s) I watch. I look forward to them when they come, so I’ll definitely be sad if it was all cancelled, and I’m definitely biased.
We arnt looking forward to it. We never really wanted it.
Edit: sorry that's a bit generic, but I have never heard anyone say they are looking forward to the Olympics locally, pre covid, and post, I hear a lot of people wtf'ing it's going ahead.
It's completely anecdotal, but as a private teacher at 4 different schools I have a wide pool.
I live and work in the Tokyo area, and my anecdata are similar to yours. Of the hundreds of people I know through work or private life, exactly two ever mentioned looking forward to the games, most seemed uninterested and passively resigned, and a few have been actively opposing them. The percentages would probably break down somewhat differently, though, if I knew more people in the travel industry or people whose primary information feed comes from the mainstream media, which were enthusiastic about the games up until COVID.
I think this is now the standard reaction of first-worlders whenever something like this is planned for their city. Everybody knows the costs are massive (and often being siphoned off by corrupt people) and the upsides very few; most people are unlikely to attend the events (they are typically very expensive); and the pain of construction will add misery to their everyday life for years in advance.
The press typically reverts this outlook by going full-jingo once the event happens, and then "you" will be "proud" that your homeland could be so excellent and well-organized and now attracting even more tourists. Expect a horrifying overflow of basic nationalism.
For Japan this will now be harder, but I'm sure a narrative will eventually emerge about resilience in the face of adversity and "showing the world" some of that proverbially-unbreakable Japanese spirit. And you won't have to endure a month of terrible commuting.
The World Cup was more popular, but still wasn't widely accepted as some people think it would be.
The Olympics was outright hated, so many stupid shenanigans happened there (like demolishing a NEW stadium, to build another identical one, just because the seatings positions were slightly bad).
So no, you don't need to be first world to recognize how stupid hosting the Olympics is.
just because the seatings positions were slightly bad).
A lot of the IOC (and probably FIFA) requirements seem silly. Pretty soon, we're going to see the Olympics go back and forth between LA and Paris just because they're the only cities that naturally have the required infrastructure, unless there's a change.
The stadium in question was the one for bicycle racing, it was built for the Pan-American games.
Right after those games, IOC decided to change the percentage of seats allowed behind pillars.
So they concluded the solution, instead of reducing amount of seats or something, was to demolish the entire stadium, and build a new one with the support pillars in new locations.
You are not looking at this from the right perspective. Nobody really cares about pillars and views, but a lot of people do care about construction money. Reasons will be found.
It would not surprise me if only 10% of the population cared.
But 10% is quite a large number for any event, and sure to bring in quite a bit of profit. Name me a concert that 10% of the population claims to wish to attend?
The majority indeed does not care, but a sufficiently high number does that it is profitable.
London apparently saw a drop in spending at shops, restaurants and tourist destinations over the Olympic summer due to so many people (both tourists and locals) fearing the chaos the Olympics would cause and deciding to stay away
People have been memeing "Stop it! Stop it" [0] for a while now.
To take with a shovel of salt of course, but that feeling of just getting shafted by the corrupt politicians and the IOC, and just not wanting more money to go into the pit is echoed by the people in my small sphere.
I doubt you will find any Olympic Games in the last 40 sears that did not attract people being opposed to them. In the end, it binds resources some thing may be used more efficiently elsewhere, as if the money is gone after spending it.
In this case in particular, what started as mostly a joke got fueled by the cost paid for postponing the event, coupled with the eventual penalties that would apply if the event was canceled altogether.
There was a heated moment the first time the gov had to decide wether to swallow the sunk costs and just cancel everything, or only postpone, hoping the situation would be better after a few months.
The first set of damages have already be paid, so now whatever the course of events, Olympics will be a pretty bitter subject for most people I think.
Edit: postponing was not penalties per se, more contracting and maintenance costs. Fixed the wording,
I think you mean "tourist dollars", not "tourist yen". The former, both literally and metaphorically, is what they're losing and what they would presumably prefer. The latter is much less attractive--akin to moving money from one kimono sleeve to another--but without foreigners, "tourist yen" is all they end up with.
Like the dollars all those Europeans are bringing?
I get that there is a grain of truth in what you are saying but this is mostly an outdated mode of thinking. The Japanese economy has plenty of access to $ denominated capital markets if they wanted $.
Yes, Europeans bring the metaphorical "dollars" I referred to. And there is no "if they wanted $". They do. And I mean earning dollars, not buying them on international markets. I have access to capital markets, too, and I can buy any currency I want, but buying money is not the same as earning it.
They want investment. They aren't facing a shortage of any specific currency. As i mentioned, if their shortage was currency specific, they have access to capital and forex markets.
I will repeat. The Japanese don't have any specific need for dollars that they can't fulfill on a balance of payments basis. Some countries do. But Japan doesn't.
You don't seem to understand the difference between earning dollars and exchanging currency. I'm not claiming they face a "shortage of a specific currency". I'm saying they want to earn money from foreign customers, not exchange currency with them, and that (nationally) they would prefer earning money from foreign customers to earning it from each other.
Earning money from foreign customers gives the Japanese as a nation purchasing power of future foreign assets, such as oil, food, or land outside Japan. It makes their country wealthier in the world. Exchanging currency does no such thing, because it gives the foreigners an equal claim against future Japanese assets: no net gain in wealth. Selling to each other also does not give them (as a nation) the increased buying power outside Japan that selling their goods and services for foreign dollars gives them.
Are you potentially confusing the concept of "dollars" with the concept of "money". While there are multiple currencies named "dollars" the term "dollars" is not generally interchangeable with the word "money".
Under your scheme, if a Polish person exchanges Euros for Yen in Japan and then buys a beer in Tokyo, did Japan just "earn dollars"? Because I think it's pretty clear that nothing referred to as a "dollar" moved hands here.
When I referred to tourist dollars "both literally and metaphorically" and explicitly distinguished between the two categories, it was because the metaphorical tourist dollars weren't literally "dollars". So you responded that Euros weren't literally dollars. Well, yes, that was the "metaphor" part. They were in that other category I mentioned, the one where tourist dollars aren't literal, just metaphorical. And yet you still don't get it. "But they're not dollars." The only guess you have is that maybe I'm confused and think that all money is called "dollars"? Yeah, that must be it.
So, 'if a Polish person exchanges Euros for Yen in Japan and then buys a beer in Tokyo, did Japan just "earn dollars"?' Yes, they DID just metaphorically earn tourist dollars, and no, they did NOT literally earn any "dollars". I might also have said that thanks to the Polish customers, Japanese bartenders were able to metaphorically bring home the bacon, except that you would then probably get upset and explain to me that Poles in a Japanese bar would pay in yen, not in pork products.
Is it an example of the political pull of the IOC? The Asian culture of face-saving? Or plain old sunk cost fallacy? I honestly don't know.