# Digital Covid-19 vaccine passport for South Africa launching "in just over a week"

#### Venator

##### Expert Member
dig that hole, don't let me stop you

I'm not the one who missed the obvious parallel being drawn between vaccine-less survival rate (98%) and the use of the number 98% in the context of car accidents

it should be patently obvious that the implication is without protection, yet you offer stats on the protection

I even rephrased it in child-speak, no you prefer your incorrect interpretation yet again /facepalm

On the contrary, you're showing an inability for effectively comparing statistics. Not sure why I'm surprised here seeing as you've demonstrated poor math skills throughout.

#### semaphore

##### Honorary Master
oh god the "no I'm not, you are" defense

you realise this forum has a minimum age rule right? how did you even get internet access in your nursery school?

#### NarrowBandFtw

##### Honorary Master
On the contrary, you're showing an inability for effectively comparing statistics. Not sure why I'm surprised here seeing as you've demonstrated poor math skills throughout.
if they were so poor you would be able to challenge them

instead you grab entirely different (and at least once even irrelevant) data instead, the irony of such a person question the reasoning skills of others would be funny if it wasn't so sad at the same time

#### Venator

##### Expert Member

Apparently "copy and paste" requires an immense amount of time and effort.

#### tetrasect

##### Expert Member
dig that hole, don't let me stop you

I'm not the one who missed the obvious parallel being drawn between vaccine-less survival rate (98%) and the use of the number 98% in the context of car accidents

it should be patently obvious that the implication is without protection, yet you offer stats on the protection

I even rephrased it in child-speak, no you prefer your incorrect interpretation yet again /facepalm

Ok let me show you some "actual" math. 0.7% of road accidents with seatbelts are lethal, seatbelts prevent 50% of deaths.

So if 0.7% of accidents is 50% of deaths, then 100% of deaths (no seatbelts) is 1.4%.

That means 98.6% of accidents without seatbelts are non-fatal.

98.6% is a higher number than 98% BTW, just in case you missed that.

#### NarrowBandFtw

##### Honorary Master
do you think I didn't predict, expect and then ended up seeing the responses the last time around?

this is not a deflection: I have seen that it is a waste of time

even though I know it is a waste of time, I will happily look at the math skills of anyone who so readily mocks mine, yet none are on offer, none ... so who is truly deflecting?

#### semaphore

##### Honorary Master
do you think I didn't predict, expect and then ended up seeing the responses the last time around?

this is not a deflection: I have seen that it is a waste of time

even though I know it is a waste of time, I will happily look at the math skills of anyone who so readily mocks mine, yet none are on offer, none ... so who is truly deflecting?
You are still deflecting now you're just adding excuses for your deflection. You can easily just reference where you posted the ground breaking formula somewhere else. But yeah, deflect, it makes you look very credible.

#### Venator

##### Expert Member
if they were so poor you would be able to challenge them

instead you grab entirely different (and at least once even irrelevant) data instead, the irony of such a person question the reasoning skills of others would be funny if it wasn't so sad at the same time

You specifically said
if 98% of car accidents were non-fatal nobody would wear seatbelts

next?

I specifically provided data, the source of the data, and the reasoning required to refute your claim exactly as you stated it.

If you misspoke, that's on you not me. I cannot be held liable for an argument you meant to post but didn't.

#### NarrowBandFtw

##### Honorary Master
Ok let me show you some math. 0.7% of road accidents with seatbelts are lethal, seatbelts prevent 50% of deaths.

So if 0.7% of accidents is 50% of deaths, then 100% of deaths (no seatbelts) is 1.4%.

That means 98.6% of accidents are non-fatal.

98.6% is a higher number than 98% BTW, just in case you missed that.
- you're deducing the 98.6% based on assumptions that you don't even highlight as assumptions (your 50% for example), with the covid parallel we have a real world measured 98%, not an estimation
- you have provided no formula either
- you have made no effort to guess / assume / estimate a number of deaths caused by seatbelts, you just silently assume it is 0%

yeah ... if I were you I'd stop criticising others

#### Die Uwe

##### Active Member
2. It would be morally corrupt to force a woman to donate any part of her body to a 5-year-old (even her own).....attempting to make an exception for a fetus would be committing a "special pleading" fallacy.

It would be called murder to kill and rip a 5 year old's libs from their body....attempting to make an exception for a fetus would be committing a "special pleading" fallacy.

#### NarrowBandFtw

##### Honorary Master
You are still deflecting now you're just adding excuses for your deflection. You can easily just reference where you posted the ground breaking formula somewhere else. But yeah, deflect, it makes you look very credible.
nobody claimed it is ground breaking, that is all you, is very simple actually

"easily just reference" ... have you tried searching for a post from weeks / months ago without any bookmark on this forum? if that's your idea of easy and a worthy spend of your time I weep for you

it would take actual effort to dig up and actual effort to reproduce, effort I am not willing to waste a second time around

#### semaphore

##### Honorary Master
nobody claimed it is ground breaking, that is all you, is very simple actually

"easily just reference" ... have you tried searching for a post from weeks / months ago without any bookmark on this forum? if that's your idea of easy and a worthy spend of your time I weep for you

it would take actual effort to dig up and actual effort to reproduce, effort I am not willing to waste a second time around
Then you shouldn't be referencing material you can't produce.

#### NarrowBandFtw

##### Honorary Master
If you misspoke, that's on you not me. I cannot be held liable for an argument you meant to post but didn't.
you misinterpreted, I corrected you, yet you refuse to budge and prefer to stick to your misinterpretation despite my correction

that's 100% on you now

#### NarrowBandFtw

##### Honorary Master
Then you shouldn't be referencing material you can't produce.
I can, I won't, how was that not clear?

#### tetrasect

##### Expert Member
- you're deducing the 98.6% based on assumptions that you don't even highlight as assumptions (your 50% for example), with the covid parallel we have a real world measured 98%, not an estimation

I took the numbers @Venator posted. If you refute those figures then provide some of your own.

- you have provided no formula either

I showed my work. I could write it in a more formal way but won't change the outcome.

- you have made no effort to guess / assume / estimate a number of deaths caused by seatbelts, you just silently assume it is 0%

yeah ... if I were you I'd stop criticising others

Yeah you're trying to shift goalposts now. Anyways, if you want me to add the extremely small number of fatalities caused by seatbelts then let me know what the number is and I'll subtract it. Again, it won't change the outcome.

In fact the more deaths are caused by seatbelts, the smaller the number of deaths without seatbelts would be. So the total number of non-fatal accidents without seatbelts would go up, not down. That's the direction that further disproves your point BTW, in case you missed it.

Last edited:

#### semaphore

##### Honorary Master
I can, I won't, how was that not clear?
Okay, so basically you're just talking from your ass - as per usual.

#### Venator

##### Expert Member
It would be called murder to kill and rip a 5 year old's libs from their body....attempting to make an exception for a fetus would be committing a "special pleading" fallacy.

If you're going to imply that a fetus and a 5-year-old are of equal value (or importance, or whatever...I'm not quite sure what you mean here), then you're going to have to present an argument as to why that is the case.

#### surface

##### Honorary Master
It would be called murder to kill and rip a 5 year old's libs from their body....attempting to make an exception for a fetus would be committing a "special pleading" fallacy.
What is your plan of action though? Move to Islamic countries ? It looks like your value systems match so you should move to non-murderous countries.

#### Die Uwe

##### Active Member
If you're going to imply that a fetus and a 5-year-old are of equal value (or importance, or whatever...I'm not quite sure what you mean here), then you're going to have to present an argument as to why that is the case.

Im not implying they are the same, just like a 1 month old and a 5 year old are not the same. However both are living humans, albeit living in different ways.

You are the one that make a distinction between them, based on what? And if you say because a fetus cannot live on its own, then I would like to ask you if you are all for 'aborting' someone in hospital that cannot live without machines keeping them alive

#### s0lar

##### Expert Member
You realise that there is already a vaccine passport. It's a yellow book you get that you show in a foreign country at arrivals.
This is just the digital version. Saves me having to dig that yellow book out to prove I have had yellow fever/typhoid vaccines for instance.
I’m pretty well travelled and have never had to produce anything of the sort?