Is it safe to holiday in Muslim countries now?

[Zamo 10]

1/xxx tourists killed in a given country in a given timescale.

 

Compare that to the risk of being killed in an RTA in the UK/person for the same time scale.

 

Not perfect, but gives you some concept of the level of risk.

 

We have no choice but to use our road so we get on with it. We have a choice where we go on holiday and with so many destinations to choose from it is easy enough to simply ignore Muslim countries. The extra risk may be very small but, when you consider something as trivial as the size of swimming pool might sway a holiday destination choice, it is more than enough to to convince most people to simple go somewhere else.

[foxy lady 10]

We have no choice but to use our road so we get on with it. We have a choice where we go on holiday and with so many destinations to choose from it is easy enough to simply ignore Muslim countries. The extra risk may be very small but, when you consider something as trivial as the size of swimming pool might sway a holiday destination choice, it is more than enough to to convince most people to simple go somewhere else.

 

If I were looking at a holiday destination I would add into your risk list the chances of spending my 2 weeks holiday sitting in an airport waiting for the evacuation flight home.

 

My idea of a holiday is to relax. It isn't about having to worry whether there is a bomb on the plane or whether the guy on the beach has an AK47. It is the ability to fly to the destination and back with the minimum risk and the minimum chance of spending days in an airport, and above all the peace of mind. I don't think you statisticians have thought of that.

[cassity 10]

We have no choice but to use our road so we get on with it.

 

Yes we do have a choice not to use..if you use RISK of death... as a quantifier, then you would ban traffic.

 

 

We have a choice where we go on holiday and with so many destinations to choose from it is easy enough to simply ignore Muslim countries.

 

No we don't have a choice if the destination has been suspend. Did we suspend flights to the USA after 9/11? Did the USA ban flights into Heathrow after the bus and tube bombings? The risk was high and the numbers of death also.

Edited November 11, 2015 by cassity

[L00b 441]

If I were looking at a holiday destination I would add into your risk list the chances of spending my 2 weeks holiday sitting in an airport waiting for the evacuation flight home.

 

My idea of a holiday is to relax. It isn't about having to worry whether there is a bomb on the plane or whether the guy on the beach has an AK47. It is the ability to fly to the destination and back with the minimum risk and the minimum chance of spending days in an airport, and above all the peace of mind. I don't think you statisticians have thought of that.

They have, because they've been told. Repeatedly.

 

But by the look of the thread, they'll have none of your common sense in here (and/or they will allege that you have been lobotomized...have you? )

 

No we don't have a choice if the destination has been suspend. Did we suspend flights to the USA after 9/11? Did the USA ban flights into Heathrow after the bus and tube bombings? The risk was high and the numbers of death also.

You weren't in the US trying to get back to the UK (or wherever else) after 9/11 happened, were you?

 

Careful before you answer, it's a loaded question

[qualum 10]

And so far you've entirely failed to demonstrate what the level of danger is...

 

---------- Post added 11-11-2015 at 09:39 ----------

 

Nobody suggested dismissing them.

What they suggested was putting them into perspective against other risks that we accept.

 

 

 

So you made a claim, but admit that you can't support it. Not much use in a discussion then is it, so why bother?

The bit in bold is a miserable fail in the first place.

 

Its not my job to show you or anyone else the level of danger.

So because someone accepts some risks they should accept all risks?

 

The research I carried out on the internet supports my claims, and the internet is available for all to use. Other than show you how to use Google I don't see how I can help you any further.

[Zamo 10]

Yes we do have a choice not to use..if you use RISK of death... as a quantifier, then you would ban traffic.

 

No we don't have a choice if the destination has been suspend. Did we suspend flights to the USA after 9/11? Did the USA ban flights into Heathrow after the bus and tube bombings? The risk was high and the numbers of death also.

 

Nobody is calling for flights to be suspended or banned.

 

If I said I had been torn between booking a holiday in Italy or Spain but had chosen Italy because Spanish food sometimes gives me heartburn, would you get all stropy, start demand that I properly quantify the risk and tell me I'm as likely to be run over going out for carbonara as I am a paella?!? I'm sorry that my pettiness annoys you and others and, if it helps, I promise I'll reconsider visiting Spain when they make their Chorizo less spicy, Muslim countries when they get their extremist problems in check, Benidorm when there are less English and France when there are less French (joke, Loob, joke).

 

Sometime little things can swing big decisions.. that's life.

[MikeFrank 10]

I read the other day that the safest airport in the world to fly in and out is Israel... Might be an idea I quite like all the history.....

[WiseOwl182 10]

I read the other day that the safest airport in the world to fly in and out is Israel... Might be an idea I quite like all the history.....

 

 

That's the problem with stats sometimes. Using someone like Cyclone's logic, Jupiter is a much safer planet to live on than Earth because the stats show that nobody has ever died there. It's therefore a zero risk.

[L00b 441]

I'm sorry that my pettiness annoys you and others and, if it helps, I promise I'll reconsider visiting Spain when they make their Chorizo less spicy, Muslim countries when they get their extremist problems in check, Benidorm when there are less English and France when there are less French (joke, Loob, joke).

I only visit the place for family reasons and the odd indulgence, otherwise I avoid it if I can help it - no offence taken

 

Get Yorkshire to be independent and get me a Yorkshire passport (I actually have a well developed Yorkshire/northern accent by now, believe it or not), and I'll even swap nationalities

Edited November 11, 2015 by L00b

[Cyclone 10]

Why "must" it follow?

Because if they've judged x% is too high a risk to take, then (assuming they're not just mad) x% is ALWAYS too high a risk (although it might depend on the possible pay-off... Maybe they'll take a higher risk if the pay-off is a million quid in gold bullion).

 

Why can it not simply be that people who regard muslim countries as 'too risky' to visit, do so simply because of a fear of getting caught in, or in the aftermath of, a terrorist incident, but exhibit inversely high (some will say, equally irrational) tolerance to other risks?

Again, assuming the same pay-off for the risk, that would be a highly irrational way to behave.

And yet, I will gladly travel by car above posted limits when it is -all things duly considered- safe to do so: wide, clear, deserted, reasonably straight and dry roads), because I like to drive fast (which is still inherently dangerous, of course: a tyre could blow, an animal could cross, <etc.>), and regularly engage in sports with some degree of physical risk (martial arts, scuba, skiing <etc.>).

I was looking at sports risks earlier, scuba is actually pretty high risk! Probably more danger of dying on a dive than there is of being blown up in a bomb in Turkey.

EDIT: with the benefit of hindsight, I suppose that the question of the OP could benefit from refinement with a further question: unsafe from what? As that would help define what risks are, or need to be, assessed.

 

Getting killed, maimed or abducted by terrorists? close to nil risk

Getting caught/stranded in aftermath/logistics/evacuation/whatnot? mild risk (IMHO)

Getting pickpocketed/robbed/scammed? as high a risk as ever

Drowning/getting run over by a jetski/getting knocked down by a camel at speed? as high a risk as ever

<etc.>

 

With the exception of yourself though, the majority of people who wouldn't go to a Muslim country said that the risk (of terrorism) was too high, or simply that they were "hellholes"... None of them appear to have thought about or quantified the risk at all, which was the point I was trying to get them to consider.

 

---------- Post added 12-11-2015 at 09:26 ----------

 

We have no choice but to use our road so we get on with it. We have a choice where we go on holiday and with so many destinations to choose from it is easy enough to simply ignore Muslim countries. The extra risk may be very small but, when you consider something as trivial as the size of swimming pool might sway a holiday destination choice, it is more than enough to to convince most people to simple go somewhere else.

 

You're telling me that every journey you make, HAS to be made and can ONLY be made by car?

 

---------- Post added 12-11-2015 at 09:28 ----------

 

They have, because they've been told. Repeatedly.

Don't exaggerate, a) you mentioned inconvenience first on page 11, b) it's irrelevant to the OP and the title, which is about safety, not inconvenience.

 

---------- Post added 12-11-2015 at 09:29 ----------

 

Its not my job to show you or anyone else the level of danger.

 

 

How can you choose to accept or not accept a risk if you have no concept of how risky it is?

 

---------- Post added 12-11-2015 at 09:30 ----------

 

That's the problem with stats sometimes. Using someone like Cyclone's logic, Jupiter is a much safer planet to live on than Earth because the stats show that nobody has ever died there. It's therefore a zero risk.

 

Are you just trying to demonstrate a lack of ability to discuss like an adult?

[Zamo 10]

You're telling me that every journey you make, HAS to be made and can ONLY be made by car?

 

I'm saying that people accept the risks associated with car usage because of the obvious huge benefits. Accepting the risks associated with terrorism in a Muslim country doesn't come with such huge advantages... I can just as happily laze on a beach in Tenerife as I can in Sharm for the same money. The risk difference may be small but in a tiebreaker situation it is as good a reason as any to choose Tenerife. The size of the difference doesn't really matter... it just makes the difference!

[L00b 441]

Because if they've judged x% is too high a risk to take, then (assuming they're not just mad) x% is ALWAYS too high a risk (although it might depend on the possible pay-off...Maybe they'll take a higher risk if the pay-off is a million quid in gold bullion).

That looks like a logical fallacy to me, as it is not risk within the meaning of the thread (understood as a negative outcome), it is chance (understood as a positive outcome).

 

People don't gamble £££ on the lottery/horses/bookies in the hope of not losing their stake, they gamble in the hope of winning the said pay-off.

 

People who estimate the risk of terrorism in Muslim countries to be "too high" would not visit these countries regardless and gamble that nothing will happen to them (positive outcome), they simply do not go there to mitigate the negative outcome of being killed or maimed.

Again, assuming the same pay-off for the risk, that would be a highly irrational way to behave.

How so?

 

There's no payoff with speeding, other than temporary self-gratification. Yet the risks are high, up to and including lethal.

 

I'm quietly confident there's thousands of would-be tourists that have written off Muslim countries within the meaning of the OP, which speed here there and everywhere on their car travels at any one time.

 

Is it your contention that all of them are behaving irrationally, then?

 

That none of them are aware of, and have considered -however briefly- the risks associated with speeding, from the more benign end (get caught/fined/points) to the gravest end (crash/dead) when they decide to speed?

Don't exaggerate, a) you mentioned inconvenience first on page 11, b) it's irrelevant to the OP and the title, which is about safety, not inconvenience.

It's far from irrelevant: safety and inconvenience are both "risks".

 

Refer my edit of 18:52 yesterday, suggesting to further qualify the OP's risks (which are all-encompassing in the OP).

 

You can also readily conflate one with the other, as mass evacuations of the sort last seen in Tunisia and Sharm carry their own safety issues.

I was looking at sports risks earlier, scuba is actually pretty high risk! Probably more danger of dying on a dive than there is of being blown up in a bomb in Turkey.

Indeed. And I've experienced enough close shaves to vouch for that (all by supposedly PADI "advanced" divers, strangely enough...including one occasion in Sharm, of all places) Edited November 12, 2015 by L00b