|
|
|
|
|
by tlrobinson
2584 days ago
|
|
I don't understand the downvotes. If we're talking about tourists doesn't it make sense to look at... tourists? EDIT: to be clear, my hypothesis was the murder rate of tourists was lower than the overall murder rate, which could plausibly make the "You’re 100x more likely to die in a car accident" statement correct. See hsitz's comment and my response. 100x is likely an exaggeration but you still are probably "more likely to die in a car accident on your commute tomorrow than by a cartel member in Mexico as a tourist". |
|
So say, 10 tourists get murdered in Mexico each year. That's (very roughly) 10 per 18 million, or 1 per 1.8 million, or 0.06 per 100k.
BTW, adding "per year" to the metric would be misleading, add nothing, because it falls out of the unit analysis in the calculation, which is done based on
This is not that helpful, because tourists stay just a short time, not a full year like local residents. If you want to somehow compare this to a metric of inhabitants murdered per 100k per year then you probably want to do more. Assume the average tourist stays 1 week. Then we need to multiply by 52 to get the number of tourists murdered per year of tourist time in Mexico, which yields result of around 3 (0.06 x 52) per 100k of tourist-years. This is significantly less than the U.S. average of 5 murders/100k per year. So it could be that U.S. tourists are safer in Mexico than they are at home. ;)[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tourism_in_Mexico#Statistics