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

Moby Grape

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 18, 2008
Messages
54,731
You do know that the word "rare" doesn't mean something doesn't happen at all, right?

The word "rare" means that something HAPPENS, by some probability.

So if serious medical injuries occur at a rate of 1 in 2800 and you call that "rare", then if 7 billion people are vaccinated, you can expect that literally millions of people WILL be medically injured. WILL. DEFINITELY

If you force a vaccine on 7.7 billion people that medically injures at a rate of around 1 in 2800 then you will definitely injure at least 2 MILLION people. You will. That's just math. That's reality. Wake up. "Rare" doesn't mean "hurr durr it basically doesn't happen at all we don't have to worry about this".

People like you are so dimwitted that you think if something is "rare" it means it basically doesn't happen.
1 in 2800. Now back that up please.
 

Fulcrum29

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
45,930
Why would it take me anywhere? It's not a URL, it's a certificate. I can't think of a clearer way to explain it to you :ROFL:

So the QR code doesn't link anywhere, right...

Odd that there is also a fraud line printed on the certificate.
 

flytek

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Messages
870
Ok so with reflective thought do you think 10% of the vaccinated so far are on a medical aid?
Sorry I have no idea of medical aid stats. I went by 10% greater than poverty stricken. Probabaly way less actually have medical aid however I have no idea of the stat you are looking for.
 

Fulcrum29

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
45,930
I'm not following your issue with that. A QR code is not a URL, it's simply encoded data.

Why is that odd?

A QR code can contain any data, it links to, whether it is a URL, metadata, metrics, etc. I asked what the QR scan will link you to? I wasn't the one being a chop about it.

Since I have already scanned it, and know what it produces, so to quote the article,

However, he clarified during the latest press conference that it currently has no plans to require the digital certificate to be presented to access public facilities or services.

Instead, the minister said the document could potentially be used to gain entry to entertainment or sporting events and possibly some businesses.

all of these facilities, venues and services will require authenticating said QR code (to whatever it is linking to) to validate your vaccine certificate, if not possible then false vaccine certificate can be produced.

Neither do I know against what the code is authenticating against, what is the party exposed to when scanning your QR code, what do they see, what is the indication of the vaccine certificate being authentic?

The reason for their being a fraud line on it, is for the possibility of a fake vaccine certificate being furnished by the user.
 

Daveogg

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2003
Messages
1,858
Sorry I have no idea of medical aid stats. I went by 10% greater than poverty stricken. Probabaly way less actually have medical aid however I have no idea of the stat you are looking for.
Ok what percentage of people in South Africa so far vaccinated are on a medical aid. Your best guess, with the information available to you?
 

Moby Grape

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 18, 2008
Messages
54,731
A QR code can contain any data, it links to, whether it is a URL, metadata, metrics, etc. I asked what the QR scan will link you to? I wasn't the one being a chop about it.
It doesn't link you to anything, it's simply an encoded certificate.
all of these facilities, venues and services will require authenticating said QR code (to whatever it is linking to) to validate your vaccine certificate, if not possible then false vaccine certificate can be produced.
These facilities will read your certificate and use a government site to validate it:
1. Is the certificate valid / not expired
2. Is it issued by the correct certificate authority
3. Is it issued to the person who's name and ID appear on the card.
4. Is the person presenting the card the same as the person who's name appears on the card.
The reason for their being a fraud line on it, is for the possibility of a fake vaccine certificate being furnished by the user.
And it's very easy to detect.
 
Last edited:

flytek

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Messages
870
Ok what percentage of people in South Africa so far vaccinated are on a medical aid. Your best guess, with the information available to you?
I took a conservative to the upside guess earlier at 10%? What do you understand of the figure?
 

Daveogg

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2003
Messages
1,858

Fulcrum29

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
45,930
It doesn't link you to anything, it's simply an encoded certificate.

Clearly you don't know the definition of a link.

These facilities will read your certificate and use a government site to validate it:
1. Is the certificate valid / not expired
2. Is it issued by the correct certificate authority
3. Is it issued to the person who's name and ID appear on the card.

Here I thought it doesn't link you to anywhere. Sure, they don't copy and paste the cryptographic hash :ROFL:

As I said, it cannot be read at this time,

"The QR Code generated is not intended to be readable by the general public, it is meant to be used by entities requiring to verify the card’' validity, using a Vaccine Certificate System inbuilt QR scanner which will be available in the near future," notes the disclaimer at the bottom of the Covid-19 Vaccination Card.

And it's very easy to detect.

Yet, false QR codes was produced in other parts of the world, and false vaccine certificates was produced. Easy to detect doesn't obfuscate the fact that vaccine certificates are being forged. Time will tell how hardened our security measures are for detecting false certificates or otherwise allow access.
 

Moby Grape

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 18, 2008
Messages
54,731
Clearly you don't know the definition of a link.
I beg to differ. Feel free to define it if you like.
Here I thought it doesn't link you to anywhere. Sure, they don't copy and paste the cryptographic hash :ROFL:
Why does it need to link you anywhere? They open their government authenticator app and scan your certificate. What link are you referring to? There will no doubt be an app to read the cert, send it to the government website via API and receive a response that contains authentication information.
As I said, it cannot be read at this time,
It can be read, it can't be authenticated at the moment since the issuer has not yet made that facility available. It's a plain text certificate.
Yet, false QR codes was produced in other parts of the world, and false vaccine certificates was produced. Easy to detect doesn't obfuscate the fact that vaccine certificates are being forged. Time will tell how hardened our security measures are for detecting false certificates or otherwise allow access.
Anyone can produce a QR code any time of day, it's just plain text data. Were these false vaccine certificates based on PKI? Links please.
 

flytek

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Messages
870
So after reflection you are sticking to your guess of 10%?

What to change your belief when you get more information?

Sorry we are talking apples and oranges. I'm talking about the entire SA vaccinated population. You are talking about discovery members with a far higher percentage of rich old, fat and scared comorbids
 

Turtle

Expert Member
Joined
May 2, 2004
Messages
1,862
Strange how all these vaccine injured patients are avoiding my hospital?

Let me guess, if a patient reports negative effects you tell them it "can't possibly be the vaccine because the vaccine is safe & effective and has absolutely zero risk of severe harms whatsoever"?

I could've sworn you yourself posted about issues like myocarditis risk of these vaccines in the past but perhaps it was someone else. Or perhaps you want to argue myocarditis is "mild".

Do you do troponin level tests after vaccinating? D-dimers? Immune panels?

Do you really understand statistics well? I question your understanding of statistics. Consider this: Imagine hypothetically for a moment that severe medical injury rate is, say, around 1 in 3000 - how many vaccinated have you closely observed? If you have personally vaccinated & closely observed 9000 patients then you might expect to see around 3 severe medical injuries - that's relatively few for a single doctor (from an individual doctor's perspective that may easily fall into the 'background noise') - so the rate of medical injury may be just low enough that it's falling below the baseline where a single physician may not be able to notice it. And if he/she has a "safe & effective!!" bias it makes it even more difficult to see. E.g. see a heart attack or stroke, from where the doctor is observing, it's just noise, and he/she chalks it up to "coincidence".

If a medical injury rate is hypothetically around 1 in 3000 (assuming this figure for the sake of argument) then a proper study or trial to detect this would need to have more than 3000 people, and should ideally also be double-blinded. And proper close observation. I'd also like to see routine troponin level tests and D-dimers to properly understand how broad such problems really are.
 
Last edited:

Daveogg

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2003
Messages
1,858
Let me guess, if a patient reports negative effects you tell them it "can't possibly be the vaccine because the vaccine is safe & effective and has absolutely zero risk of severe harms whatsoever"?

I could've sworn you yourself posted about issues like myocarditis risk of these vaccines in the past but perhaps it was someone else. Or perhaps you want to argue myocarditis is "mild".

Do you do troponin level tests after vaccinating? D-dimers? Immune panels?
Lol I am currently in a virology lecture and this needs a comprehensive reply. Catch you later.
 

Fulcrum29

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
45,930
I beg to differ. Feel free to define it if you like.

Why does it need to link you anywhere? They open their government authenticator app and scan your certificate. What link are you referring to? There will no doubt be an app to read the cert, send it to the government website via API and receive a response that contains authentication information.

It can be read, it can't be authenticated at the moment since the issuer has not yet made that facility available. It's a plain text certificate.

Anyone can produce a QR code any time of day, it's just plain text data. Were these false vaccine certificates based on PKI? Links please.

You chose to be difficult. The QR code serves as a link between the certificate holder and the authenticity thereof, otherwise known as a relationship. You are more than welcome to present me with the Little Mac Learner's Dictionary's definition thereof. Hence, I asked what the QR code is linking to for knowing what it is authenticating against?

The disclaimer on the current digital vaccine certification is clear,

*The QR Code generated is not intended to be readable by the general public, it is meant to be used by entities
requiring to verify the card’s validity, using a Vaccine Certificate System inbuilt QR scanner which will be available
in the near future.


*CONFIDENTIAL – Please report fraud or misuse to evdsfraud@health.gov.za

which begs whether other non-government facilities, organisations or businesses can authenticate the certificate against the user of the certificate? Yes, I said user, the certificate being 'digital' after all.

If the QR code is of no use, then public key infrastructure is irrelevant. What use is said "plain text' if the "signature" is just that, plain text without being interpretable? All the venues has at this time is the word of the user.

Unless of course the mobile app for scanning, and interpreting, said QR code is already readily available, and useable, for non-government entities, then I will suck my own toes. Otherwise, the digital vaccine signature cannot be read at this time, the QR code is then just as good as the other information on the certificate which is the point I am conveying. What is the point of securing a QR code which is not useable? Yes, we are readying for the 'near future', but I am talking of now. How are ordinary 'access providers' suppose to know whether a certificate is currently fraudulent?

Besides, incidents of forged QR codes has already been discussed on this forum.

I have valid reasons for asking these questions, the world wants people to conform to this standard, and expectancies will be made, although we, South Africa, have turned lax with this election period, there will be people attempting to forge their digital vaccination certificates.
 

Daveogg

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2003
Messages
1,858
Sorry we are talking apples and oranges. I'm talking about the entire SA vaccinated population. You are talking about discovery members with a far higher percentage of rich old, fat and scared comorbids
No we aren't.
I gave you some more information to help you assess your estimate that of all the people vaccinated in South Africa 10% of on a medical aid.

You seem unable to change your preheld belief when given more relevant information.
 

Moby Grape

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 18, 2008
Messages
54,731
You chose to be difficult. The QR code serves as a link between the certificate holder and the authenticity thereof, otherwise known as a relationship. You are more than welcome to present me with the Little Mac Learner's Dictionary's definition thereof. Hence, I asked what the QR code is linking to for knowing what it is authenticating against?
Sorry dude, but you have to admit, there is no way you can expect me to understand that train of thought.
The disclaimer on the current digital vaccine certification is clear,

which begs whether other non-government facilities, organisations or businesses can authenticate the certificate against the user of the certificate? Yes, I said user, the certificate being 'digital' after all.

If the QR code is of no use, then public key infrastructure is irrelevant. What use is said "plain text' if the "signature" is just that, plain text without being interpretable? All the venues has at this time is the word of the user.
All the piece of paper is doing is confirming that the government certifies that the individual listed on the bit of paper, with the ID number on the certificate, has been vaccinated. You'll still need to prove you are the owner of that ID and name using your id document.
Unless of course the mobile app for scanning, and interpreting, said QR code is already readily available, and useable, for non-government entities, then I will suck my own toes. Otherwise, the digital vaccine signature cannot be read at this time, the QR code is then just as good as the other information on the certificate which is the point I am conveying. What is the point of securing a QR code which is not useable? Yes, we are readying for the 'near future', but I am talking of now. How are ordinary 'access providers' suppose to know whether a certificate is currently fraudulent?
The digital signature cannot be authenticated yet, they have just not provided the interface for doing that. It doesn't make the certificate irrelevant or useless. What difference does it make to you if the system is ready today or next month? The longer the delay the better IMO.
Besides, incidents of forged QR codes has already been discussed on this forum.
This has little to nothing to do with QR codes - they are simply a means of encoding that can easily be read by a computer. You can read your own certificate immediately, just use your camera on your phone. You can encode anything you like... just go here:
I have valid reasons for asking these questions, the world wants people to conform to this standard, and expectancies will be made, although we, South Africa, have turned lax with this election period, there will be people attempting to forge their digital vaccination certificates.
You are probably just not understanding the technology.
 

Charlesjjm

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2014
Messages
675
Sorry dude, but you have to admit, there is no way you can expect me to understand that train of thought.

All the piece of paper is doing is confirming that the government certifies that the individual listed on the bit of paper, with the ID number on the certificate, has been vaccinated. You'll still need to prove you are the owner of that ID and name using your id document.

The digital signature cannot be authenticated yet, they have just not provided the interface for doing that. It doesn't make the certificate irrelevant or useless. What difference does it make to you if the system is ready today or next month? The longer the delay the better IMO.

This has little to nothing to do with QR codes - they are simply a means of encoding that can easily be read by a computer. You can read your own certificate immediately, just use your camera on your phone. You can encode anything you like... just go here:

You are probably just not understanding the technology.

I scanned my QR code with my camera. It was all gibberish. It's probably encrypted or encoded or something.
 

Daveogg

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2003
Messages
1,858
Let me guess, if a patient reports negative effects you tell them it "can't possibly be the vaccine because the vaccine is safe & effective and has absolutely zero risk of severe harms whatsoever"?

I could've sworn you yourself posted about issues like myocarditis risk of these vaccines in the past but perhaps it was someone else. Or perhaps you want to argue myocarditis is "mild".

Do you do troponin level tests after vaccinating? D-dimers? Immune panels?

Do you really understand statistics well? I question your understanding of statistics. Consider this: Imagine hypothetically for a moment that severe medical injury rate is, say, around 1 in 3000 - how many vaccinated have you closely observed? If you have personally vaccinated & closely observed 9000 patients then you might expect to see around 3 severe medical injuries - that's relatively few for a single doctor (from an individual doctor's perspective that may easily fall into the 'background noise') - so the rate of medical injury may be just low enough that it's falling below the baseline where a single physician may not be able to notice it. And if he/she has a "safe & effective!!" bias it makes it even more difficult to see. E.g. see a heart attack or stroke, from where the doctor is observing, it's just noise, and he/she chalks it up to "coincidence".

If a medical injury rate is hypothetically around 1 in 3000 (assuming this figure for the sake of argument) then a proper study or trial to detect this would need to have more than 3000 people, and should ideally also be double-blinded. And proper close observation. I'd also like to see routine troponin level tests and D-dimers to properly understand how broad such problems really are.
"Let me guess, if a patient reports negative effects you tell them it "can't possibly be the vaccine because the vaccine is safe & effective and has absolutely zero risk of severe harms whatsoever"?"

You guessed wrong. I have never said the vaccine has absolutely zero risk, everything we do has risk, I am constantly balancing risk vs benefit of every intervention. If anything I am heightened to the vaccine side effect risks.

"I could've sworn you yourself posted about issues like myocarditis risk of these vaccines in the past but perhaps it was someone else."

Correct I posted about one patient who developed myocarditis after receiving a vaccine post infection. Would I have posted about it if I was somehow trying to "hide" vaccine injuries.

"Or perhaps you want to argue myocarditis is "mild"."

I run an emergency unit and I have a post graduate qualification in sports medicine. I look after some elite level athletes, including world record holders, who fit into the age and gender cohort of patients at higher risk of myocarditis post vaccine. I am acutely aware of the consequences of a myocarditis. The simple reality is the risk of myocarditis post infection is orders of magnitude higher than the risk post vaccination. Do I wish Covid never existed and we didn't have to make this choice - of course. Do I s**t myself every time one of my sports med patients go for a vaccine - for sure. Are they all vaccinated - yes.

"Do you do troponin level tests after vaccinating? D-dimers? Immune panels?
I'd also like to see routine troponin level tests and D-dimers to properly understand how broad such problems really are.
"

Do you have any understanding of what you are asking for?
A well 68yr old female has a d-dimer of 0.89 2 days post vaccination. What are you going to do next?

"Do you really understand statistics well? I question your understanding of statistics. Consider this: Imagine hypothetically for a moment that severe medical injury rate is, say, around 1 in 3000 - how many vaccinated have you closely observed? If you have personally vaccinated & closely observed 9000 patients then you might expect to see around 3 severe medical injuries - that's relatively few for a single doctor (from an individual doctor's perspective that may easily fall into the 'background noise') - so the rate of medical injury may be just low enough that it's falling below the baseline where a single physician may not be able to notice it. And if he/she has a "safe & effective!!" bias it makes it even more difficult to see. E.g. see a heart attack or stroke, from where the doctor is observing, it's just noise, and he/she chalks it up to "coincidence".

If a medical injury rate is hypothetically around 1 in 3000 (assuming this figure for the sake of argument) then a proper study or trial to detect this would need to have more than 3000 people, and should ideally also be double-blinded. And proper close observation. I'd also like to see routine troponin level tests and D-dimers to properly understand how broad such problems really are."


I would assess my understanding of statistics at best as basic. I did a biomedical maths course as a module during medical school, and I am currently involved in some research and have a statistician available to help and advise in the data analysis.
What you have discussed above however is not statistics, rather very simple maths. I agree with you absolutely if the injury rate is 1/3000 vaccinated individuals The average medical practitioner is unlikely to see very many vaccine injuries. What I do also know is that Covid injuries were an hourly occurrence.

The question is very simple do you take something with a 1/3000 injury rate to prevent something with a 1/3 injury rate.
Don't make the mistake of comparing something with a 1/3000 injury rate with 0, that is 2019 thinking.
 

flytek

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Messages
870
No we aren't. I gave you some more information to help you assess your estimate that of all the people vaccinated in South Africa 10% of on a medical aid. You seem unable to change your preheld belief when given more relevant information.
Ok I looked it up. 16% of SA is on medical aid. 23% of adults are fully vaccinated and there are 42 million adults in SA. What part am I getting wrong according to the information you provided that I'm supposedly unable to assimilate?
The 16% on medical aid probably includes at least 25% children so maybe some 12% of SA adults are on medical aid.
Screenshot_20211007-055459_Samsung Internet.jpg Screenshot_20211007-060104_Firefox.jpg Screenshot_20211007-060517_Gallery.jpg
 
Last edited:
Top