Off Topic

Toronto Board of Health Endorses Intravenous Drug Injection Sites

  • Last Updated:
  • Nov 9th, 2017 11:44 pm
Tags:
None
Deal Addict
Feb 23, 2015
1434 posts
365 upvotes
Brampton, ON
tranquility922 wrote:
Mar 18th, 2016 6:04 pm
I guess you have logic prbs, then, in addition to reading prbs. You can't really prove a -ive, i.e. not having a site is good because... Rather, ppl have to prove that sites are good, esp since they are taken at face-value 'bad' since it assists users. Finally, I'm pretty darn objective but for 11pgs or so ppl have been presenting extremely flimsy 'evidence' until recently, which should now be analyzed. I doubt that any of you pro-site ppl are as objective and some of you go even as far as saying that it's a no-brainer to have them despite the majority of TOians objecting for obvious reasons.
Source??
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Sep 21, 2010
7388 posts
926 upvotes
Toronto
flyingnurse wrote:
Mar 19th, 2016 1:33 am
Source??
Sure. I saw it when watching the afternoon CTV phone-in poll a few days ago, it was crazy ~78% against and ~58% against (can't remember which one was phone and which one was via internet) the sites. Anyway, some stats, range 52-65% against in TO and Ottawa, I'm sure there's more (search "injection" for the actual poll):
http://toronto.ctvnews.ca/more/poll-results
http://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/community/poll-results
http://www.ctvnews.ca/more/poll-results
Deal Expert
User avatar
Feb 9, 2003
16268 posts
1734 upvotes
Langley
tranquility922 wrote:
Mar 19th, 2016 2:18 am
Sure. I saw it when watching the afternoon CTV phone-in poll a few days ago, it was crazy ~78% against and ~58% against (can't remember which one was phone and which one was via internet) the sites. Anyway, some stats, range 52-65% against in TO and Ottawa, I'm sure there's more (search "injection" for the actual poll):
http://toronto.ctvnews.ca/more/poll-results
http://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/community/poll-results
http://www.ctvnews.ca/more/poll-results
Wow, for someone who endlessly demands concrete evidence, you sure fall easily for garbage data. These types of polls don't mean much because the people responding are self-selecting. A far more valid method is for a research company to contact people at random.

I don't have too much time at the moment to try and find such research about potential sites in Toronto, but here's one about Vancouver's existing site.

http://ipsos-na.com/news-polls/pressrel ... px?id=3957

At the time, 50% thought that SISs should be expanded to other cities. I don't think that it's yet fair to say to say that the majority of TOians are opposed. And going further, you shouldn't claim that you know people's reasons, and those reasons are obvious. You should provide some evidence.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Sep 21, 2010
7388 posts
926 upvotes
Toronto
i6s1 wrote:
Mar 19th, 2016 10:22 am
Wow, for someone who endlessly demands concrete evidence, you sure fall easily for garbage data. These types of polls don't mean much because the people responding are self-selecting. A far more valid method is for a research company to contact people at random.

I don't have too much time at the moment to try and find such research about potential sites in Toronto, but here's one about Vancouver's existing site.

http://ipsos-na.com/news-polls/pressrel ... px?id=3957

At the time, 50% thought that SISs should be expanded to other cities. I don't think that it's yet fair to say to say that the majority of TOians are opposed. And going further, you shouldn't claim that you know people's reasons, and those reasons are obvious. You should provide some evidence.
LOL, why so angry? Those are recent polls and provide a good indication for TO and Ottawa; as for yours, ya, I'm sure your EIGHT (8) year old poll is so valid. As for good evidence, if having sites were such a slamdunk, I wouldn't have had to wait 11pgs for ppl to scrap up something 1/2-decent to advocate their case. As for denying that my stance is obvious, that's just hilarious. Ofc on its face it seems absurd to assist users, in addition to moral and financial aspects. If you deny that, you're just not being very realistic and fail to see the other side.

Here, I'll even do your homework for you, more recent than yours and more on pt since dealing w/ TO: 44% supports sites, but there's a big 13% undecided. Not exactly a ringing endorsement.
http://www.torontosun.com/2012/04/19/in ... dents-poll
Deal Expert
User avatar
Feb 9, 2003
16268 posts
1734 upvotes
Langley
37% against, 44% for. Hardly the majority opposition that you claimed. And ftr, that's your homework since you made the claim. I havent made any claims wrt public opinion.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Sep 21, 2010
7388 posts
926 upvotes
Toronto
i6s1 wrote:
Mar 19th, 2016 2:30 pm
37% against, 44% for. Hardly the majority opposition that you claimed. And ftr, that's your homework since you made the claim. I havent made any claims wrt public opinion.
Um, I was referring to the poll I saw on the news, which a majority was against 58% or 78%, take your pick. Further research shows against results ranging 52-65%, that trumps said 44%. Again, 44% is hardly a ringing endorsement esp w/ a big undecided, period. My homework's solid; yours is outdated and irrelevant.
Deal Expert
User avatar
Feb 9, 2003
16268 posts
1734 upvotes
Langley
tranquility922 wrote:
Mar 19th, 2016 8:40 pm
Um, I was referring to the poll I saw on the news, which a majority was against 58% or 78%, take your pick. Further research shows against results ranging 52-65%, that trumps said 44%. Again, 44% is hardly a ringing endorsement esp w/ a big undecided, period. My homework's solid; yours is outdated and irrelevant.
Self-selected opinion polls are meaningless compared to randomly selected polls. You have not demonstrated your claim. Your claim was originally that there was (actual) majority opposition, it was not that you had seen a flawed call-in poll with majority opposition. I never claimed that there was majority support, I generally fact check before posting so I'm aware that public opinion is divided.

Your demands for solid evidence from others contrasts tellingly with the poor quality evidence you supply to support of your position.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Sep 21, 2010
7388 posts
926 upvotes
Toronto
i6s1 wrote:
Mar 19th, 2016 10:47 pm
Self-selected opinion polls are meaningless compared to randomly selected polls. You have not demonstrated your claim. Your claim was originally that there was (actual) majority opposition, it was not that you had seen a flawed call-in poll with majority opposition. I never claimed that there was majority support, I generally fact check before posting so I'm aware that public opinion is divided.

Your demands for solid evidence from others contrasts tellingly with the poor quality evidence you supply to support of your position.
Really, that's all you have, you're gonna to try to totally discount these results due to the method of polling? I guess there's nothing for you to stand on...or pro-site ppl don't possess a phone or internet? Or only against-site ppl watch CTV? Or pro-site ppl were still asleep? Pro-site ppl less vocal? Any more excuses? Pretty weaksauce. Anyway, polls are polls and the against crushed: I was wrong, it was 87% against (not 78% as I previously reported) (phone) and 54% against (web) [Mar14 afternoon]. Up-to-date (just few days ago, not EIGHT years, and relevant (re TO, not Vcr).
http://toronto.ctvnews.ca/video?binId=1.815895
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Sep 21, 2010
7388 posts
926 upvotes
Toronto
Btw, if you have a prb w this, then that's just hypocritical since you're the one claiming that there isn't any concrete evidence to support sites and one should just believe flimsy ones. Now, these polls are quite recent and on-pt yet you wish to discount them for being not concrete? Lol.
Deal Expert
User avatar
Feb 9, 2003
16268 posts
1734 upvotes
Langley
tranquility922 wrote:
Mar 19th, 2016 11:07 pm
Really, that's all you have, you're gonna to try to totally discount these results due to the method of polling? I guess there's nothing for you to stand on...or pro-site ppl don't possess a phone or internet? Or only against-site ppl watch CTV? Or pro-site ppl were still asleep? Pro-site ppl less vocal? Any more excuses? Pretty weaksauce. Anyway, polls are polls and the against crushed: I was wrong, it was 87% against (not 78% as I previously reported) (phone) and 54% against (web) [Mar14 afternoon]. Up-to-date (just few days ago, not EIGHT years, and relevant (re TO, not Vcr).
http://toronto.ctvnews.ca/video?binId=1.815895
Yes, these sorts of polls should be totally discounted because the random poll you posted will be a far better gauge of public opinion. For someone with such a high standard of evidence, it's hypocritical of you to act as if a low-quality research method is superior to a higher quality method.

Here's an example why web/call-in polls are poor quality.

http://novascotiahunting.com/forums/ind ... trol-poll/

People who want to push a particular point of view will be more likely to react to the poll. I'm not surprised this effect didn't occur to you.

The fact that the phone and web results varied so much also demonstrate clear issues with methodology.
tranquility922 wrote:
Mar 19th, 2016 11:32 pm
Btw, if you have a prb w this, then that's just hypocritical since you're the one claiming that there isn't any concrete evidence to support sites and one should just believe flimsy ones.
That's a false dichotomy. Concrete evidence doesn't exist because science doesn't permit absolutes. That doesn't mean that all actual evidence is flimsy. Evidence has a continuum of quality, and higher quality evidence is superior to lower quality evidence. There's no hypocrisy when someone who prefers high quality data to low quality data points out that concrete evidence doesn't exist.

There is hypocrisy when someone demands high quality data from others but uses low quality data to support his own argument.
tranquility922 wrote:
Mar 19th, 2016 11:32 pm
Now, these polls are quite recent and on-pt yet you wish to discount them for being not concrete? Lol.
No, I discount non-random because there's higher quality data available. Newer data is usually preferable, but not at the expense of poor methodology.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Sep 21, 2010
7388 posts
926 upvotes
Toronto
^Say what you will, no poll is precise, but it's still good indication of the subject matter (in addition to being, to the best of my knowledge, the most recent and relevant polling on topic) and it's hypocritical how you can accept one analysis but reject another, no matter how you spin it, mask away or use flowery semantics. 'Science doesn't permit absolutes' - yet another silly comment that is just out there.

Nice try. Next.
Deal Expert
User avatar
Feb 9, 2003
16268 posts
1734 upvotes
Langley
tranquility922 wrote:
Mar 20th, 2016 12:52 am
^Say what you will, no poll is precise, but it's still good indication of the subject matter (in addition to being, to the best of my knowledge, the most recent and relevant polling on topic) and it's hypocritical how you can accept one analysis but reject another, no matter how you spin it, mask away or use flowery semantics. 'Science doesn't permit absolutes' - yet another silly comment that is just out there.

Nice try. Next.
I guess I just can't make it simple enough for you to understand.

What a ridiculous assertion, that it's hypocritical to accept reliable data and not unreliable data.

With such a total inability to grasp clear and simple concepts, it's not surprising that an issue like SIS is far beyond your comprehension.

Anyways, you can start learning about the basic concepts, and it will help you tremendously if you decide to eventually return and debate complex issues.

Here's a good place to start learning, maybe try and have an adult with you to help you with the big words.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_bias
Another example is online and phone-in polls, which are biased samples because the respondents are self-selected. Those individuals who are highly motivated to respond, typically individuals who have strong opinions, are overrepresented, and individuals that are indifferent or apathetic are less likely to respond. This often leads to a polarization of responses with extreme perspectives being given a disproportionate weight in the summary. As a result, these types of polls are regarded as unscientific.
Please, make sure you're well-versed in basic concepts such as this, to avoid further embarrassing yourself.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Sep 21, 2010
7388 posts
926 upvotes
Toronto
^You're the only one embarrassing yourself as that is the only polling available atm that's relevant vs your old/irrelevant data, yet you choose to ignore w/ excuses. It's hypocritical as you choose to rely upon the flimsy, indirect pro-site evidence - you even cited a discussion forum(!) as a pathetic means to attack it in your previous post lol. Both sides can participate...or are you saying that nothing at all can be gleaned from the poll? I suppose that your contention is that against-site ppl are more vocal to the poll then, hence the results. I guess you also believe that there are no downsides whatsoever for sites either. In any event, again, the 44% is no shining endorsement, esp considering the huge undecided. Finally, there are various reasons to oppose sites besides financial, i.e. if it's feasible, practical and/or moral, all of which you have failed to convince. Next.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Sep 21, 2010
7388 posts
926 upvotes
Toronto
Btw, I really doubt that you're on my lvl if you resort to personal attacks. Esp the way you type all haughty, condescendingly and false superior-like lol. I'm just shooting this back at you as you choose to rely heavily upon indirect evidence that stretches to only assert cans/ifs/maybe, yet, try to shoot down this polling that has results due to the mode. Ironic much? Well, that's the only recent/relevant poll we have but you reject, in contrast to readily accepting flimsy stats that, hey, something slightly good may result from sites but can't be shown...no such thing as concrete evidence(!)(lol) so just believe it! Again, hypocritical. Ofc I am aware of the various forms of polling but to say that it should be totally disregarded is ridiculous. This coming from a guy that thinks science cannot prove absolutes and only has grey areas.

Top