Golden Gate Bridge Suicide Net Plan Gets Boost

Korban_Dallas wrote:

lovedust wrote:
Didgey: hang about... This was a systematic review by suicide experts from 15 countries including

- 10 individual systematic reviews or metaanalyses
- 18 randomized controlled trials
- 24 cohort studies and
- 41 ecological studies

... and you say it's flawed by my own admission because it doesn't take things like financial situation and bullying into account?

that doesn`t count as dodgy is an expert in everything
And all the studies in the world won't change that one delusional self belief he has in his own retoric

Korban_Dallas wrote:

Didge wrote:


More childish counters, and unable to move on to the point now I am the subject of the debate and not the points at hand.

You need to grow up and move on!

factual counters if you dont mind are you saying you haven't directed more childish insults than I have
in fact go through the thread see who started with the insults and accusation i have done my very best to be civil its a real shame that the same can't be said of you

How pathetic

Didge wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Didge wrote:


Lovedust I have read many areas on suicide and they link based on number reductions, without taking other factors into consideration, as pointed out to korben who still refuses to answer my points. He keeps side tracking and he needs to stop diverting to the points

The reality is we do have examples of suicide nets and as seen it does not reduce numbers as seen

Didge, where does it say that?

And the 4 links you gave me earlier do not dispute the evidence already presented to you.

Oh, and stop being silly about people running away. I’ve already told you that you are not that important. You just have to accept that other people actually have a life beyond forums and spend time with their family and friends and have other things to do. I know that may come as a shock you but I’m afraid you rank below all that.

More childish abuse, you need to grow up and debate the points and stop your silly grudge with Quill

I suggest you read back to the links I have given on the nets used in Canada

http://www.ctvnews.ca/do-barriers-around-bridges-prevent-suicides-1.529932

http://news.nationalpost.com/2010/07/07/british-medical-journal-study-bloor-street-viaduct-barrier-not-lowering-torontos-suicide-rate/

Didge wrote:

Korban_Dallas wrote:
that doesn`t count as dodgy is an expert in everything
And all the studies in the world won't change that one delusional self belief he has in his own retoric

More childish replies which again center on me and not the debate, you need to grow up and counter the points!
I am no expert in IT and other subjects, I do have extensive knowledge on History, psychology, theology, risk analysis, discrimination, terrorism etc which I debate on said topics for the record.

So again I suggest you move past these silly grudges and debate the points

Didge wrote:

Korban_Dallas wrote:
factual counters if you dont mind are you saying you haven't directed more childish insults than I have
in fact go through the thread see who started with the insults and accusation i have done my very best to be civil its a real shame that the same can't be said of you

How pathetic

Are you being civil now?

Nope, in fact you are as seen being very childish, and apart from lovedust people have been bashing each other, which seems to elude you and again you are diverging away from the topic at hand, clearly because you have no understanding of the topic, as I stated

Irn Bru wrote:

Didge wrote:

More childish abuse, you need to grow up and debate the points and stop your silly grudge with Quill

I suggest you read back to the links I have given on the nets used in Canada

http://www.ctvnews.ca/do-barriers-around-bridges-prevent-suicides-1.529932

http://news.nationalpost.com/2010/07/07/british-medical-journal-study-bloor-street-viaduct-barrier-not-lowering-torontos-suicide-rate/

There is no abuse Didge. That's the response you're getting for making a silly claim that I was running away which was insulting and unnecessary. And I don't see why you are bringing up Quill again but I'll take it that you just want to stoke the fire and keep it going.

Anyway, I read the report on the Bloor Street Viaduct but I don't think you did because you are citing two reports from media sources. You dismiss all the evidence that has been presented to you as flawed but you expect the evidence you present to be accepted as fact.

The article in the National Post starts off by saying

"The costly barrier added to Toronto’s Bloor Street Viaduct has not reduced the city’s overall suicide rate, according to a study published in the British Medical Journal today"

Well that's wrong because the city's overall suicide rate did drop and the report states that quite clearly. Here's what the report actually says...

Both the overall rate of suicides in Toronto and the rate of suicides by means other than jumping decreased by 28 suicides per year in the period after the barrier

The decrease in overall rate of suicide in Toronto bordered on statistical significance whereas the decrease in the rate of suicides by other means was significant. The overall annual rate of suicides in Ontario (excluding Toronto) also decreased significantly in the period after the barrier.

The actual report goes on to say...

As in any natural experiment, however,this research has many uncontrolled variables. Firstly, despite the relatively high rate of suicides by jumping at Bloor Street Viaduct, the absolute numbers may have been too low to achieve adequate power in a study of this kind. Secondly, despite the relative comprehensiveness of the chief coroners records, it is possible that suicide rates by all causes were overestimated or underestimated in the period before or after the barrier
owing to incompleteness or inaccuracy of records.

Thirdly, the coroners records might be prone to bias because people found dead beneath certain bridges or after falling from any bridge or building are more likely to have been ruled as having died by suicide than by causes such as homicide or unintentional death.

Finally, it is possible that an ecological fallacy is operating. Suicide in itself is a rare event and suicides by jumping are uncommon to an even greater extent.

Despite the remarkably stable number of suicides by jumping in Toronto before the barrier, the possibility that rates of suicide at other bridges increased after the barrier for reasons other than substitution of location cannot be discounted. These reasons might include chance fluctuations in rates, economic changes, social changes, or other interventions to restrict the means of completing suicide. It is conceivable that the barrier led to a reduction in suicides but that this was masked by one or more of these uncontrolled variables.


You really should have gone to the actual report and read it first before trying to pass it off as conclusive evidence that nets do not reduce deaths by jumping from bridges.

Didge wrote:

lovedust wrote:
Didgey: hang about... This was a systematic review by suicide experts from 15 countries including

- 10 individual systematic reviews or metaanalyses
- 18 randomized controlled trials
- 24 cohort studies and
- 41 ecological studies

... and you say it's flawed by my own admission because it doesn't take things like financial situation and bullying into account?

Yes I do find it flawed, because it is seeking to find such a link, which leads to bias, where again it fails to factor in the many points I have raised, as seen we see a very good example of safety nets being used which does not change the rate of suicides, in fact as stated it just moves it elsewhere.
The fact remains and any expert will tell you the best methods are in helping the victims themselves

lovedust wrote:

Didge wrote:


Yes I do find it flawed, because it is seeking to find such a link, which leads to bias, where again it fails to factor in the many points I have raised, as seen we see a very good example of safety nets being used which does not change the rate of suicides, in fact as stated it just moves it elsewhere.
The fact remains and any expert will tell you the best methods are in helping the victims themselves

Why would they be biased when that would be in their patients' worst interests?

Didge wrote:

lovedust wrote:

Why would they be biased when that would be in their patients' worst interests?

As stated they have set out to find said link.

Again Lovedust why do you keep avoiding my points and not answer them, I have answered every point you have posted to me, so why do you fail to do the same?

Didge wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

There is no abuse Didge. That's the response you're getting for making a silly claim that I was running away which was insulting and unnecessary. And I don't see why you are bringing up Quill again but I'll take it that you just want to stoke the fire and keep it going.

Anyway, I read the report on the Bloor Street Viaduct but I don't think you did because you are citing two reports from media sources. You dismiss all the evidence that has been presented to you as flawed but you expect the evidence you present to be accepted as fact.

The article in the National Post starts off by saying

"The costly barrier added to Toronto’s Bloor Street Viaduct has not reduced the city’s overall suicide rate, according to a study published in the British Medical Journal today"

Well that's wrong because the city's overall suicide rate did drop and the report states that quite clearly. Here's what the report actually says...

Both the overall rate of suicides in Toronto and the rate of suicides by means other than jumping decreased by 28 suicides per year in the period after the barrier

The decrease in overall rate of suicide in Toronto bordered on statistical significance whereas the decrease in the rate of suicides by other means was significant. The overall annual rate of suicides in Ontario (excluding Toronto) also decreased significantly in the period after the barrier.

The actual report goes on to say...

As in any natural experiment, however,this research has many uncontrolled variables. Firstly, despite the relatively high rate of suicides by jumping at Bloor Street Viaduct, the absolute numbers may have been too low to achieve adequate power in a study of this kind. Secondly, despite the relative comprehensiveness of the chief coroners records, it is possible that suicide rates by all causes were overestimated or underestimated in the period before or after the barrier
owing to incompleteness or inaccuracy of records.

Thirdly, the coroners records might be prone to bias because people found dead beneath certain bridges or after falling from any bridge or building are more likely to have been ruled as having died by suicide than by causes such as homicide or unintentional death.

Finally, it is possible that an ecological fallacy is operating. Suicide in itself is a rare event and suicides by jumping are uncommon to an even greater extent.

Despite the remarkably stable number of suicides by jumping in Toronto before the barrier, the possibility that rates of suicide at other bridges increased after the barrier for reasons other than substitution of location cannot be discounted. These reasons might include chance fluctuations in rates, economic changes, social changes, or other interventions to restrict the means of completing suicide. It is conceivable that the barrier led to a reduction in suicides but that this was masked by one or more of these uncontrolled variables.


You really should have gone to the actual report and read it first before trying to pass it off as conclusive evidence that nets do not reduce deaths by jumping from bridges.

Really

http://www.bmj.com/content/341/bmj.c2884


56.4 per year before the barrier compared to 56.6 per year after.

As well, the number of suicides by jumping from bridges other than the Bloor Street Viaduct rose from 8.7 per year to 14.2 per year after the barrier was installed. The study is published in the July issue of the British Medical Journal (BMJ).





You need to read the report as I have done

Try again

Joy Division wrote:

Didge wrote:


As stated they have set out to find said link.

Again Lovedust why do you keep avoiding my points and not answer them, I have answered every point you have posted to me, so why do you fail to do the same?

Didge...do you in your own opinion think that the nets for the GGB will be beneficial even in the slightest in regards to shicide jumpers?

Korban_Dallas wrote:

Didge wrote:


Really

http://www.bmj.com/content/341/bmj.c2884


56.4 per year before the barrier compared to 56.6 per year after.

As well, the number of suicides by jumping from bridges other than the Bloor Street Viaduct rose from 8.7 per year to 14.2 per year after the barrier was installed. The study is published in the July issue of the British Medical Journal (BMJ).





You need to read the report as I have done

Try again

FFs in the introduction to that it says quite clearly


Introduction

It is well recognized that restricting access to a means of suicide may delay or even prevent suicide among vulnerable peopleIt is well recognized yet still you deny that

Didge wrote:

lovedust wrote:

Why would they be biased when that would be in their patients' worst interests?

As stated they have set out to find said link.

Again Lovedust why do you keep avoiding my points and not answer them, I have answered every point you have posted to me, so why do you fail to do the same?

Didge wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Didge wrote:

More childish abuse, you need to grow up and debate the points and stop your silly grudge with Quill

I suggest you read back to the links I have given on the nets used in Canada

http://www.ctvnews.ca/do-barriers-around-bridges-prevent-suicides-1.529932

http://news.nationalpost.com/2010/07/07/british-medical-journal-study-bloor-street-viaduct-barrier-not-lowering-torontos-suicide-rate/

There is no abuse Didge. That's the response you're getting for making a silly claim that I was running away which was insulting and unnecessary. And I don't see why you are bringing up Quill again but I'll take it that you just want to stoke the fire and keep it going.

Anyway, I read the report on the Bloor Street Viaduct but I don't think you did because you are citing two reports from media sources. You dismiss all the evidence that has been presented to you as flawed but you expect the evidence you present to be accepted as fact.

The article in the National Post starts off by saying

"The costly barrier added to Toronto’s Bloor Street Viaduct has not reduced the city’s overall suicide rate, according to a study published in the British Medical Journal today"

Well that's wrong because the city's overall suicide rate did drop and the report states that quite clearly. Here's what the report actually says...

Both the overall rate of suicides in Toronto and the rate of suicides by means other than jumping decreased by 28 suicides per year in the period after the barrier

The decrease in overall rate of suicide in Toronto bordered on statistical significance whereas the decrease in the rate of suicides by other means was significant. The overall annual rate of suicides in Ontario (excluding Toronto) also decreased significantly in the period after the barrier.

The actual report goes on to say...

As in any natural experiment, however,this research has many uncontrolled variables. Firstly, despite the relatively high rate of suicides by jumping at Bloor Street Viaduct, the absolute numbers may have been too low to achieve adequate power in a study of this kind. Secondly, despite the relative comprehensiveness of the chief coroners records, it is possible that suicide rates by all causes were overestimated or underestimated in the period before or after the barrier
owing to incompleteness or inaccuracy of records.

Thirdly, the coroners records might be prone to bias because people found dead beneath certain bridges or after falling from any bridge or building are more likely to have been ruled as having died by suicide than by causes such as homicide or unintentional death.

Finally, it is possible that an ecological fallacy is operating. Suicide in itself is a rare event and suicides by jumping are uncommon to an even greater extent.

Despite the remarkably stable number of suicides by jumping in Toronto before the barrier, the possibility that rates of suicide at other bridges increased after the barrier for reasons other than substitution of location cannot be discounted. These reasons might include chance fluctuations in rates, economic changes, social changes, or other interventions to restrict the means of completing suicide. It is conceivable that the barrier led to a reduction in suicides but that this was masked by one or more of these uncontrolled variables.


You really should have gone to the actual report and read it first before trying to pass it off as conclusive evidence that nets do not reduce deaths by jumping from bridges.

Really

http://www.bmj.com/content/341/bmj.c2884


56.4 per year before the barrier compared to 56.6 per year after.

As well, the number of suicides by jumping from bridges other than the Bloor Street Viaduct rose from 8.7 per year to 14.2 per year after the barrier was installed. The study is published in the July issue of the British Medical Journal (BMJ).





You need to read the report as I have done

Try again

Korban_Dallas wrote:it allso says

Barriers to prevent jumping have been established at the Empire State Building, the Eiffel Tower, and several bridges worldwide.10 11 Recent arguments in favour of barriers on bridges used for suicide stem from studies in the 1970s that assessed the survivors of suicide attempts at Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco, the bridge with the world’s highest annual rate of suicide by jumping.10 In one study, four of six survivors said that they would not have attempted suicide at any location other than Golden Gate Bridge and all six favoured the construction of a barrier at the bridge.12 In another study, only 6% of 515 people who had been prevented from jumping off Golden Gate Bridge had subsequently completed suicide.


your facts opinion don't fit the very study you cite

Irn Bru wrote:

Didge wrote:


Really

http://www.bmj.com/content/341/bmj.c2884


56.4 per year before the barrier compared to 56.6 per year after.

As well, the number of suicides by jumping from bridges other than the Bloor Street Viaduct rose from 8.7 per year to 14.2 per year after the barrier was installed. The study is published in the July issue of the British Medical Journal (BMJ).





You need to read the report as I have done

Try again

You didn't quote that as a link that you wanted me to read and I can see why because it contains evidence that the results are not conclusive.

I don't need to try again because you have just confirmed that the report is not conclusive and you knew that all along.

Just out of interest - did you quote that actual link earlier in this thread?

Over to you....

lovedust wrote:

Didge wrote:


As stated they have set out to find said link.

Again Lovedust why do you keep avoiding my points and not answer them, I have answered every point you have posted to me, so why do you fail to do the same?

Why would they set out determined to find such a link, when indulging any sort of bias would be to the detriment of the patients they conducted the study to help?

Didge wrote:

Joy Division wrote:


Didge...do you in your own opinion think that the nets for the GGB will be beneficial even in the slightest in regards to shicide jumpers?

I have answered this to you already Joy, read back

Seriously there is nothing worse where you do not keep up to speed with a debate.

Again I have stated for the 20th time, the barriers will help stop accidents, it will not deter people committed to suicide, to claim it will is a flawed outlook where at least before it was human intervention that helped which a net is not the same in any shape or form, as seen in Toronto such nets were used and it had little if no affect on levels of suicides, where it increased to other bridges.
Basically the nets just push the problem of suicides somewhere else.

Didge wrote:

Korban_Dallas wrote:it allso says

Barriers to prevent jumping have been established at the Empire State Building, the Eiffel Tower, and several bridges worldwide.10 11 Recent arguments in favour of barriers on bridges used for suicide stem from studies in the 1970s that assessed the survivors of suicide attempts at Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco, the bridge with the world’s highest annual rate of suicide by jumping.10 In one study, four of six survivors said that they would not have attempted suicide at any location other than Golden Gate Bridge and all six favoured the construction of a barrier at the bridge.12 In another study, only 6% of 515 people who had been prevented from jumping off Golden Gate Bridge had subsequently completed suicide.


your facts opinion don't fit the very study you cite

You need to keep reading not choice pick out parts, that shows poor methodology on your part and why you fail to even understand the report, as I could do the same



For more than a decade it has been debated whether a barrier at Bloor Street Viaduct would be effective at preventing suicides in Toronto, Canada. Since the construction of the viaduct in downtown Toronto in 1918, at least 400 people have jumped to their deaths from the bridge.18 The 40 m high viaduct spans two major roads, is 490 m long, is double decked, and has an arched design with five lanes of traffic above a subway.19 With about 10 suicides annually from 1993 to 2002 (baseline data from this study), Bloor Street Viaduct had the dubious distinction of being the second most popular bridge for suicide studied in the world after Golden Gate Bridge.10 The barrier at Bloor Street Viaduct, named the “luminous veil,” was constructed between April 2002 and June 2003. The barrier is about 5 m high and consists of thousands of thin steel rods spaced closely together and supported externally by an angled steel frame.20 It is not known whether the barrier has had any impact on Toronto’s overall rate of suicides and on the rate of suicides by jumping. We examined coroner’s data before and after the construction of the barrier, to determine if suicide rates had changed and whether or not people substituted Bloor Street Viaduct for different locations or means of suicide.


Try again

Joy Division wrote:

Didge wrote:


I have answered this to you already Joy, read back

Seriously there is nothing worse where you do not keep up to speed with a debate.

Again I have stated for the 20th time, the barriers will help stop accidents, it will not deter people committed to suicide, to claim it will is a flawed outlook where at least before it was human intervention that helped which a net is not the same in any shape or form, as seen in Toronto such nets were used and it had little if no affect on levels of suicides, where it increased to other bridges.
Basically the nets just push the problem of suicides somewhere else.

Do you have the stats for the Toronto bridge Didge ?, something to suggest it never saved a single person over a reasonable period of time?...for this exact bridge and not the others?

Easy tiger btw.

Didge wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Didge wrote:


Really

http://www.bmj.com/content/341/bmj.c2884


56.4 per year before the barrier compared to 56.6 per year after.

As well, the number of suicides by jumping from bridges other than the Bloor Street Viaduct rose from 8.7 per year to 14.2 per year after the barrier was installed. The study is published in the July issue of the British Medical Journal (BMJ).





You need to read the report as I have done

Try again

You didn't quote that as a link that you wanted me to read and I can see why because it contains evidence that the results are not conclusive.

I don't need to try again because you have just confirmed that the report is not conclusive and you knew that all along.

Just out of interest - did you quote that actual link earlier in this thread?

Over to you....

Wow so now your argument is on links where this link was in the link of one of the  two I gave you

Come on you can do better than that, the fact remains it does not show that it decreases levels of suicide, in fact evidence suggests clearly where it increased elsewhere on other bridges

Korban_Dallas wrote:

Didge wrote:


You need to keep reading not choice pick out parts, that shows poor methodology on your part and why you fail to even understand the report, as I could do the same



For more than a decade it has been debated whether a barrier at Bloor Street Viaduct would be effective at preventing suicides in Toronto, Canada. Since the construction of the viaduct in downtown Toronto in 1918, at least 400 people have jumped to their deaths from the bridge.18 The 40 m high viaduct spans two major roads, is 490 m long, is double decked, and has an arched design with five lanes of traffic above a subway.19 With about 10 suicides annually from 1993 to 2002 (baseline data from this study), Bloor Street Viaduct had the dubious distinction of being the second most popular bridge for suicide studied in the world after Golden Gate Bridge.10 The barrier at Bloor Street Viaduct, named the “luminous veil,” was constructed between April 2002 and June 2003. The barrier is about 5 m high and consists of thousands of thin steel rods spaced closely together and supported externally by an angled steel frame.20 It is not known whether the barrier has had any impact on Toronto’s overall rate of suicides and on the rate of suicides by jumping. We examined coroner’s data before and after the construction of the barrier, to determine if suicide rates had changed and whether or not people substituted Bloor Street Viaduct for different locations or means of suicide.


Try again

methodology on my part ?? You have a thing about claiming faulty methodology in all your arguments how very odd

I submit it`s your reading skills and comprehension that's the problem here
 

Irn Bru wrote:

Didge wrote:


Wow so now your argument is on links where this link was in the link of one of the  two I gave you

Come on you can do better than that, the fact remains it does not show that it decreases levels of suicide, in fact evidence suggests clearly where it increased elsewhere on other bridges

You hadn't read it before had you otherwise you would have quoted that rather than the two media reports? You just got it when I gave you extracts from it that prove that the report does not present conclusive evidence when you were tring to make out that it did.

You've been rumbled Didge and you know it.

Didge wrote:

Korban_Dallas wrote:
methodology on my part ?? You have a thing about claiming faulty methodology in all your arguments how very odd

I submit it`s your reading skills and comprehension that's the problem here
 

More childish replies and diverging the debate yet again

Try again

Didge wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Didge wrote:


Really

http://www.bmj.com/content/341/bmj.c2884


56.4 per year before the barrier compared to 56.6 per year after.

As well, the number of suicides by jumping from bridges other than the Bloor Street Viaduct rose from 8.7 per year to 14.2 per year after the barrier was installed. The study is published in the July issue of the British Medical Journal (BMJ).





You need to read the report as I have done

Try again

You didn't quote that as a link that you wanted me to read and I can see why because it contains evidence that the results are not conclusive.

I don't need to try again because you have just confirmed that the report is not conclusive and you knew that all along.

Just out of interest - did you quote that actual link earlier in this thread?

Over to you....

Wow so now your argument is on links where this link was in the link of one of the  two I gave you

Come on you can do better than that, the fact remains it does not show that it decreases levels of suicide, in fact evidence suggests clearly where it increased elsewhere on other bridges

Didge wrote:I suggest you read back to the links I have given on the nets used in Canada

http://www.ctvnews.ca/do-barriers-around-bridges-prevent-suicides-1.529932

http://news.nationalpost.com/2010/07/07/british-medical-journal-study-bloor-street-viaduct-barrier-not-lowering-torontos-suicide-rate/

Korban_Dallas wrote:

Didge wrote:


More childish replies and diverging the debate yet again

Try again

childish according to you factual to any one else and you questioned my "methodology "also known as reading so your the one doing the diversion with your continued insults

Don`t dish it out if you are going to cry when it's thrown back in your face thats just hypocritical

eddie wrote:Oh my god! If you lot keep posting about this bridge I'm going to throw myself off of it!!!!

Irn Bru wrote:

Didge wrote:


Wow so now your argument is on links where this link was in the link of one of the  two I gave you

Come on you can do better than that, the fact remains it does not show that it decreases levels of suicide, in fact evidence suggests clearly where it increased elsewhere on other bridges

No it wasn't.

Didge wrote:I suggest you read back to the links I have given on the nets used in Canada

http://www.ctvnews.ca/do-barriers-around-bridges-prevent-suicides-1.529932

http://news.nationalpost.com/2010/07/07/british-medical-journal-study-bloor-street-viaduct-barrier-not-lowering-torontos-suicide-rate/

The actual BMJ link isn't there, is it?

Rumbled again

eddie wrote:Oh my god! If you lot keep posting about this bridge I'm going to throw myself off of it!!!!

Didge wrote:

eddie wrote:Oh my god! If you lot keep posting about this bridge I'm going to throw myself off of it!!!!

Then do not read it Eddie, sorry do not mean to cause you any distress!

Didge wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Didge wrote:


Wow so now your argument is on links where this link was in the link of one of the  two I gave you

Come on you can do better than that, the fact remains it does not show that it decreases levels of suicide, in fact evidence suggests clearly where it increased elsewhere on other bridges

You hadn't read it before had you otherwise you would have quoted that rather than the two media reports? You just got it when I gave you extracts from it that prove that the report does not present conclusive evidence when you were tring to make out that it did.

You've been rumbled Didge and you know it.

I read it last night thanks, and now you are diverging on silly claims to what I have done, based on me just posting two media links which as stated has the report to the link within, not my fault you cannot read them and go to the link via pressing the link, that is your issue not mine.

So again you are acting childish diverging the debate on to me and not the points of the debate

Try again

eddie wrote:

Didge wrote:



Then do not read it Eddie, sorry do not mean to cause you any distress!

Just joking didge.
No worries x

Irn Bru wrote:

Didge wrote:


I read it last night thanks, and now you are diverging on silly claims to what I have done, based on me just posting two media links which as stated has the report to the link within, not my fault you cannot read them and go to the link via pressing the link, that is your issue not mine.

So again you are acting childish diverging the debate on to me and not the points of the debate

Try again

No, I am not diverting the discussion. The evidence you claimed showed that nets didn't work didn't show that there was conclusive proof as you made out. There were other factors involved and the report sets out quite clearly what they were.

You cite all the evidence you have been presented with as flawed but expect people to accept your evidence as conclusive when it never was.

Poor show Didge.

eddie wrote:Oh my god! If you lot keep posting about this bridge I'm going to throw myself off of it!!!!

Irn Bru wrote:

eddie wrote:Oh my god! If you lot keep posting about this bridge I'm going to throw myself off of it!!!!

Don't even think about it eddie. You have the voice of an angel and you're much too nice to be fished out of the water or scraped off the road.

Didge wrote:

Joy Division wrote:


Do you have the stats for the Toronto bridge Didge ?, something to suggest it never saved a single person over a reasonable period of time?...for this exact bridge and not the others?

Easy tiger btw.

Can you go to specsavers please.

Already posted, showing you do not follow posts

http://www.bmj.com/content/341/bmj.c2884

Didge wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Didge wrote:


Wow so now your argument is on links where this link was in the link of one of the  two I gave you

Come on you can do better than that, the fact remains it does not show that it decreases levels of suicide, in fact evidence suggests clearly where it increased elsewhere on other bridges

No it wasn't.

Didge wrote:I suggest you read back to the links I have given on the nets used in Canada

http://www.ctvnews.ca/do-barriers-around-bridges-prevent-suicides-1.529932

http://news.nationalpost.com/2010/07/07/british-medical-journal-study-bloor-street-viaduct-barrier-not-lowering-torontos-suicide-rate/

The actual BMJ link isn't there, is it?

Rumbled again

Wrong again, try the blue part saying British Medical Journal, which is a link and I shall await your apology:



The costly barrier added to Toronto’s Bloor Street Viaduct has not reduced the city’s overall suicide rate, according to a study published in the British Medical Journal today.

Joy Division wrote:

Didge wrote:




Can you go to specsavers please.

Already posted, showing you do not follow posts

http://www.bmj.com/content/341/bmj.c2884

I had a wee look at that article Didge and yes..it does say suicide rates remained about the same overall after the barrier construction on the Bloor St Bridge, but obviously that was the end of suicide for that particular bridge...and that an increase was noted in people jumping from buildings, but suicides from other bridges stayed around the same level....


So it's very obvious that suicide prevention measure on a bridge will stop people from being able to jump form there...and my point is that if someone goes to a bridge where they were not quite aware of the safety equipment being there, they may well walk away because they can't jump...and by the time they do find somewhere they can jump from...they may well change their mind.

And come time maybe all tall buildingsand bridges  will have safety features which can't be breached?..
That would then mean people with suicidal thoughts would need to choose another method...

Which comes back to my pint in the very first place that everyone fears different things more or less than others ..which would mean sadly some people will still follow through with another method...but others will not.

eddie wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

eddie wrote:Oh my god! If you lot keep posting about this bridge I'm going to throw myself off of it!!!!

Don't even think about it eddie. You have the voice of an angel and you're much too nice to be fished out of the water or scraped off the road.

HAHAHAHAHA ok then!

Sorry peeps, didn't mean to make light of a sensitive issue x

Irn Bru wrote:

Didge wrote:



Wrong again, try the blue part saying British Medical Journal, which is a link and I shall await your apology:



The costly barrier added to Toronto’s Bloor Street Viaduct has not reduced the city’s overall suicide rate, according to a study published in the British Medical Journal today.

I'm sorry Didge but that just won't do. You should have quoted the actual link to the report and the content instead off trying to pass it off as the conclusive proof that you were making it out to be. Maybe you just didn't click on the link within the media report which led to you not quoting the overall results. I'm sure if you had you would have given out all the evidence but you didn't

Poor show but there you go.

Didge wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

I'm sorry Didge but that just won't do. You should have quoted the actual link to the report and the content instead off trying to pass it off as the conclusive proof that you were making it out to be. Maybe you just didn't click on the link within the media report which led to you not quoting the overall results. I'm sure if you had you would have given out all the evidence but you didn't

Poor show but there you go.

PMSL

The link is within the link I provided, so now you cannot admit you were wrong and I do not have to do anything or are you abusing your position as a moderator trying to tell me how I should post now when you are not capable of going to a link within a link. That is your failing not mine, you do not make the rules either

Didge wrote:

Joy Division wrote:


I had a wee look at that article Didge and yes..it does say suicide rates remained about the same overall after the barrier construction on the Bloor St Bridge, but obviously that was the end of suicide for that particular bridge...and that an increase was noted in people jumping from buildings, but suicides from other bridges stayed around the same level....


So it's very obvious that suicide prevention measure on a bridge will stop people from being able to jump form there...and my point is that if someone goes to a bridge where they were not quite aware of the safety equipment being there, they may well walk away because they can't jump...and by the time they do find somewhere they can jump from...they may well change their mind.

And come time maybe all tall buildingsand bridges  will have safety features which can't be breached?..
That would then mean people with suicidal thoughts would need to choose another method...

Which comes back to my pint in the very first place that everyone fears different things more or less than others ..which would mean sadly some people will still follow through with another method...but others will not.

Yes it shows it diverts the problem elsewhere Joy, it does not stop people committing suicide per say, it just moves the problem on as seen, so you are missing all the points which I stated from the start.
Placing nets is good to prevent accidents and people suffering traumas, it will not deter people who wish to commit suicide, as they will use other means. As seen even jumping is a small percentage of the methods used and you would need to show that a person is going to be deterred from committing suicide solely based on the fact a bridge now has nets, there is no evidence they will be deterred

Didge wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Didge wrote:



Wrong again, try the blue part saying British Medical Journal, which is a link and I shall await your apology:



The costly barrier added to Toronto’s Bloor Street Viaduct has not reduced the city’s overall suicide rate, according to a study published in the British Medical Journal today.

I'm sorry Didge but that just won't do. You should have quoted the actual link to the report and the content instead off trying to pass it off as the conclusive proof that you were making it out to be. Maybe you just didn't click on the link within the media report which led to you not quoting the overall results. I'm sure if you had you would have given out all the evidence but you didn't

Poor show but there you go.

PMSL

The link is within the link I provided, so now you cannot admit you were wrong and I do not have to do anything or are you abusing your position as a moderator trying to tell me how I should post now when you are not capable of going to a link within a link. That is your failing not mine, you do not make the rules either

Sassy wrote:

Didge wrote:



PMSL

The link is within the link I provided, so now you cannot admit you were wrong and I do not have to do anything or are you abusing your position as a moderator trying to tell me how I should post now when you are not capable of going to a link within a link. That is your failing not mine, you do not make the rules either

LISTEN PEOPLE, CAN I MAKE A SUGGESTION.   JUST AGREE WITH DIDGE OTHERWISE HE'LL SCREAM AND HE'LL SCREAM TIL HE'S SICK!!!!!!

Irn Bru wrote:

Didge wrote:



PMSL

The link is within the link I provided, so now you cannot admit you were wrong and I do not have to do anything or are you abusing your position as a moderator trying to tell me how I should post now when you are not capable of going to a link within a link. That is your failing not mine, you do not make the rules either

I'm not telling you how to post Didge. You can post in anyway you like but I really would have expected you to quote the actual link and not a link that contained the link but that's your choice.
It's just that you didn't quote all the additional evidence that was in there that showed that the evidence presented was not the conclusive proof that you were making it out to be.

That's true, isn't it?

Didge wrote:

lovedust wrote:

Why would they set out determined to find such a link, when indulging any sort of bias would be to the detriment of the patients they conducted the study to help?

Sorry but you are taking the piss now lovedust, answer my points all the ones I have given you and answer them, you keep avoiding them and just think that you can getaway without responding, then I will answer your points, that is how debates work

Try again