Trauma in Tunisia

[Deleted User]

Depends how you mix the stats. There's about 5-6 million tourists visit Tunisia a year. Meaning in the last year, 0.001% (1/100,000) of the tourists visiting died in a terrorist attack. If you took the last 5-10 years, the odds dwindle. Scale it up to all beach resorts and the odds are even more tiny.

Your odds of dying in a road traffic accident in the UK are 1 in 17,655 (http://www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/booth/Risk/trasnsportpop.html)

So the last year, if you visited tunisia, you were 5.66 times more likely to die at some point in a car crash then in a terrorist incident.

Ok, so it's not the 'drive to the airport' - but on an annual basis it is far more dangerous to drive a car or be a passenger, than it is to visit Tunisia once.

mickaveli2001

peachyprice wrote: »

Are they muslim countries with a large radicalised population that want western ways eradicated from their countries? No, didn't think so.

The fact that they (Muslim countries) would want Western ways eradicated from their own country would suggest to me that having something forced upon an unwilling population should be enough of a hint that they don't want it and that we should actually listen, and just cut our losses and leave them with the countries in the mess that we have created. After all Syria is 90% Islam, Iraq 90%, Afghanistan 99%, Jordan 90%...


All for Colonialism? It's something we will just have to step back from for now. How many more innocent people will have to die for the greed of a few?

peachyprice

ringo_24601 wrote: »

Depends how you mix the stats. There's about 5-6 million tourists visit Tunisia a year. Meaning in the last year, 0.001% (1/100,000) of the tourists visiting died in a terrorist attack. If you took the last 5-10 years, the odds dwindle. Scale it up to all beach resorts and the odds are even more tiny.

Your odds of dying in a road traffic accident in the UK are 1 in 17,655 (http://www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/booth/Risk/trasnsportpop.html)

So the last year, if you visited tunisia, you were 5.66 times more likely to die at some point in a car crash then in a terrorist incident.

Ok, so it's not the 'drive to the airport' - but on an annual basis it is far more dangerous to drive a car or be a passenger, than it is to visit Tunisia once.

I bet the stats don't tell the same story if you take the period from March-June. As said above, you can make statistics tell any story you want.

Cardew

ringo_24601 wrote: »

Depends how you mix the stats. There's about 5-6 million tourists visit Tunisia a year. Meaning in the last year, 0.001% (1/100,000) of the tourists visiting died in a terrorist attack. If you took the last 5-10 years, the odds dwindle. Scale it up to all beach resorts and the odds are even more tiny.

Your odds of dying in a road traffic accident in the UK are 1 in 17,655 (http://www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/booth/Risk/trasnsportpop.html)

So the last year, if you visited tunisia, you were 5.66 times more likely to die at some point in a car crash then in a terrorist incident.

Ok, so it's not the 'drive to the airport' - but on an annual basis it is far more dangerous to drive a car or be a passenger, than it is to visit Tunisia once.

Well I have seen some manipulation of statistics in my time, but your effort takes the prize;) To be blunt it is the most silly post I have seen on MSE if you are seriously trying to prove a point.

Remember you are attempting(and failing miserably) to justify your statement that you are more likely to be injured/killed in a RTA 'driving to the airport'.

1. You quote the UK statistics for dying in a RTA, and grudgingly concede that is for all journeys - not trips to the airport. So what percentage of our annual mileage is for a trip to the airport? I suspect it is a fraction of 1%. You also give the fatality figures for 2004, since then the road deaths have roughly halved and the population increased. So approx 1 in 35,000 would be a more accurate figure than 1 in 17,655.


https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/annual-road-fatalities

2. Having given the UK figures for RTA deaths, you conveniently use the total worldwide Tourist figures for Tunisia as 5-6 million (which includes their domestic tourists taking up beds) and use that figure for comparison. The latest figure I can find is that 440,000 visited from UK last year.

P.S.
Are you aware that 94.327% of statistics are made up on the spot.;)

[Deleted User]

I'm fully aware on the use of statistic (what with it being my job for a while). I'm not an actuary and frankly, trying to create a true statistical model of 'brits holidaying in Tunisia and dying in terrorist incidents' vs 'Brits travelling to the airport by road' is so bizarrely specific it would be chock full of assumptions and inherently not be accurate.

BUT - i'm trying to convey that people are rubbish at considering risk. You are hideously likely to die in a RTA over your lifetime (something like 1 in 240 people) yet you merrily drive to places still. Your lifetime odds of dying in a terrorist incident are considerably lower (Annual odds are ~ 1 in 16 million - http://www.countercurrents.org/polya160914.htm), i don't have the lifetime odds.

So for trips to Tunisia.. I'd probably skip it myself until they lowered the state of emergency. But most of the country is likely to be safe - just use the home office map to assess the risks - https://www.gov.uk/foreign-travel-advice/tunisia

Cardew

ringo_24601 wrote: »

I'm fully aware on the use of statistic (what with it being my job for a while). I'm not an actuary and frankly, trying to create a true statistical model of 'brits holidaying in Tunisia and dying in terrorist incidents' vs 'Brits travelling to the airport by road' is so bizarrely specific it would be chock full of assumptions and inherently not be accurate.

BUT - i'm trying to convey that people are rubbish at considering risk.

I would point out that you raised the issue of 'driving to the airport' and when questioned, attempted to quantify that risk.


Anyway, let's leave it at that; and I agree some people are rubbish at quantifying risk.


That said we cannot use historical data in many cases as the risk factor can dramatically increase overnight e.g. Ebola outbreak in West Africa and now the declared intention of ISIS to murder Infidels in their holiday destinations.

gregg1

mickaveli2001 wrote: »

Exactly. "terror" attacks can happen anywhere. The impact would surely strike more fear the 'closer' they occurred? I'm pretty sure our country's leadership thrive off the panic / fear for easier moulding of public demand for action (IE; Syria invasion) to go after the very guys our government (and the US) financed, supplied and created.


I'd rather book wherever I like. terror attack can happen at airports (Glasgow) or at city's around the UK. No country is 'safe'

No, but some are safer than others!

gregg1

mickaveli2001 wrote: »

The fact that they (Muslim countries) would want Western ways eradicated from their own country would suggest to me that having something forced upon an unwilling population should be enough of a hint that they don't want it and that we should actually listen, and just cut our losses and leave them with the countries in the mess that we have created. After all Syria is 90% Islam, Iraq 90%, Afghanistan 99%, Jordan 90%...


All for Colonialism? It's something we will just have to step back from for now. How many more innocent people will have to die for the greed of a few?

If only it were that simple. They don't just want Western ways eradticated from their own countries do they? They want them eradicated from everywhere. The aim is a WORLDWIDE celiphate!

mickaveli2001

gregg1 wrote: »

If only it were that simple. They don't just want Western ways eradticated from their own countries do they? They want them eradicated from everywhere. The aim is a WORLDWIDE celiphate!

Says who? Is this your belief based on what BBC news tells you? If you look at countries that are largely Muslim you'll see that they have a very low risk factor of "expanding" or initiating war with other countries. Iran is a prime example.


Far too many brainwashed people repeating media headlines

bigadaj

gregg1 wrote: »

If only it were that simple. They don't just want Western ways eradticated from their own countries do they? They want them eradicated from everywhere. The aim is a WORLDWIDE celiphate!

Is that a celibate caliphate?

Which presumably wouldn't last that long?