Originally Posted by runningshoes
The problem with using simple averages is that, statistically, it is simply invalid. Your numbers assume standard/normal distribution of events, which is incorrect. I really couldn't care less about whether anyone goes or doesn't go to Egypt or anywhere else but your analysis is incorrect. It also completely ignores the distribution of "events" in the US - for example as a tourist in the US you are almost (statistically) completely exempt from a number of categories in the murder column such as family on family cases or workplace murders, etc. I have no idea what % of murder cases they comprise, but it's not a variable that can be ignored. There are numerous other variables that need to be taken into account when doing this type of comparison.
If you consider this to be nitpicking, more power to you.
Do you have a better model, supplying better, concrete real-world answers that can be tested such that they demonstrate, in effect, better predictive value? The numbers I've presented are rather accurate, and I'm talking on the basis of a far more blended analysis than that presented here. But if you've drilled down through data in this area too, then do share some real numbers -- numbers directly relating the risk of murders in Egypt to the risk of murders in the US -- that substantiate your point. It's always good to have a concrete alternative against which to test; and if you have more perfect information and better models, I'm sure there is a market for both. (I just haven't seen anyone presenting such here in any substantial form.)
The incidence of foreign citizens being killed in Egypt is nowhere near even .025 per thousand foreign citizen arrivals. Such incidence of foreign citizens killed per thousand foreign citizen arrivals is more than double in India. Such incidence of foreign citizens being killed in Israel and Israeli-controlled territories is higher than Egypt's too. Such incidence of foreign citizens being killed is higher in the UK too. And such incidence of foreign citizens being killed in the DC area is far higher than Egypt's as well. Not unexpected, Iraq trumps all the above-mentioned when it comes to estimated incidence of homicide of foreign citizens per 1000 foreign citizen arrivals, "green zone" or not.
Putting aside the issue of artificial segmentation of victims -- a segmentation that values certain human life more than others -- if the risk is so much higher in Egypt for foreign citizens, then wouldn't most foreign individuals in Egypt purchasing most types of insurance coverage pay a sizeable premium -- and an increasing one at that -- compared to other countries in the same general socio-economic range? Why is that not the general case for foreign individuals in the market for insurance? Because of SOEs in the market? Because of regulatory regime? Because of lower risk? Because of both lower risk and SOEs/regulatory regime? Or because of something entirely different?
An American foreign tourist visiting Egypt is more at risk from dying on the roads in Egypt or on the roads in the US than they are from dying because of a terrorist attack.
As I've said earlier, the risk from terrorist attacks is rising and is likely to continue to rise. However, that does not negate the fact that the risk of dying due to a traffic accident exceeds that of dying as a tourist in Egypt. Nor does this negate the fact that the risk of being killed in the US is higher than the risk of a tourist being killed in Egypt.