Finally!!! A Zoned Travel Alert for Mexico from the US State Department

[WSOPFAN]

Where does it say this?

The way I read it, they cite a poorly targeted travel advisory as a contributing factor to their economic doldrums.

IT doesn't the OP does:

and this caused severe economic damage to the economies of many resort destinations, which for the most part have no such issues. ​

They cite nothing about the economy the OP did. Like i said, that advisory is NOT IMO 100% responsible for a poor economy in tourist areas.

 

[Ron Lee]

The US State Department advisory...when it blankets the entire country of Mexico....is just fodder for news/media reports. It all adds up to create a perception that is not realistic and is harmful for the Riviera Maya region.

 

[ggunn]

They cite nothing about the economy the OP did. Like i said, that advisory is NOT IMO 100% responsible for a poor economy in tourist areas.

No one said that it was. It was a contributing factor along with steep airline fares, the global economy, CDC scares, etc. The fact that they issued a zoned alert rather than one for the whole country is seen as a positive move for tourist areas that remain relatively safe (nowhere on earth is absolutely safe), and Antonio applauds it. What's wrong with that?

 

[BTravlin]

Right before Spring Break 2009, the State Department posted a very general travel alert to Mexico, which many took as a general "don't go to Mexico", specially the media, and this caused severe economic damage to the economies of many resort destinations, which for the most part have no such issues.

Finally in it's latest travel alert for Mexico, the State Department has been very specific about the "trouble areas" and has properly labeled the safe areas as "No advisory is in effect". Better late than never, hopefully this will start chipping away at the "Mexico psychosis" that the earlier vague alerts helped fuel.

Travel Warning
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Mexico

Kudos to those who made this happen for being socially responsible.

Exactly my point.......there are many other factors so to blame low tourism for all Mexico locations solely on a travel advisory is laughable.

IT doesn't the OP does:



They cite nothing about the economy the OP did. Like i said, that advisory is NOT IMO 100% responsible for a poor economy in tourist areas.

He does not say it is 100% responsible no matter how you want to twist it.

 

[WSOPFAN]

and this caused severe economic damage to the economies of many resort destinations, which for the most part have no such issues.​

It says "THIS" caused severe damage WITHOUT stating any other factors. That to me is stating the advisory caused 100% of the damage.

 

[ggunn]

It says "THIS" caused severe damage WITHOUT stating any other factors. That to me is stating the advisory caused 100% of the damage.

We cannot control the way you choose to interpret remarks in here, but just because someone says that something caused damage in no way implies to me that there were no other factors at work. If I say that traffic accidents kill 35,000 people every year, that doesn't mean that I think that no one dies from any other causes. Why is it that you are always wanting to fight over trivialities? Maybe you should get out more.

 

[BTravlin]

It says "THIS" caused severe damage WITHOUT stating any other factors. That to me is stating the advisory caused 100% of the damage.

Well he's not dealing with any other factors in this thread, just the travel advisory, so your interpretation is wrong.

 

[CozumelAntonio]

It says "THIS" caused severe damage WITHOUT stating any other factors. That to me is stating the advisory caused 100% of the damage.

Now that, is truly laughable...

 

[WSOPFAN]

Well he's not dealing with any other factors in this thread, just the travel advisory, so your interpretation is wrong.

If I asked you who was on first you would say what? What is NOT on first that is for sure. BTW this magical little revised listing of the advisories is supposed to vastly improve tourism? Well if it caused so much damage to the economy by not reporting correctly then business should start booming in all areas with no advisory. I guess we will see............I know one thing for sure.........6 months or a year from now tourism will not be vastly improved just because of some revamped advisory........that is truly laughable.

 

[ggunn]

If I asked you who was on first you would say what? What is NOT on first that is for sure. BTW this magical little revised listing of the advisories is supposed to vastly improve tourism? Well if it caused so much damage to the economy by not reporting correctly then business should start booming in all areas with no advisory. I guess we will see............I know one thing for sure.........6 months or a year from now tourism will not be vastly improved just because of some revamped advisory........that is truly laughable.

Don't you have anything better to do than to try and take folks to the mat on trivial points of discourse? It is unquestionably better for the tourist business on Cozumel that the travel advisory on Mexico excludes Cozumel from the warning instead of throwing a blanket advisory over the whole country. How much benefit the island will receive from the modified advisory is unknowable because of other factors in the mix. So what? Antonio just wanted to applaud the revision, and I join him in it. What the hell is wrong with that?

Who's on first.

What is on second.

I don't know is on third.

That is truly laughable. I laugh out loud every time I see them do that routine.

BTW, you said, "I know one thing for sure.........6 months or a year from now tourism will not be vastly improved just because of some revamped advisory." Really. You know that for sure, do you? How? Have you got a time machine? If I were to hold you to the same standard to which you try to hold others, I'd have to call that a bald faced lie.