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

Daveogg

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2003
Messages
1,858
The 16% on medical aid probably includes at least 25% children so maybe some 12% of SA adults are on medical aid.
And you showed 0-14 yr olds make up 28% of the population. Do you want to rethink this statement?
 

pinball wizard

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
29,525
It's literally in the Israeli news. Instead of posting lies and dismissing everything perhaps YOU should start researching and posting truth yourself, you are being blatantly dishonest.

Here is a recent actual Israeli news clip showing ISRAELI DOCTORS THEMSELVES explaining around 2000 Israelis will need a medical exemption because they are so severely medically injured by the second dose that if they take the 3rd booster shot, they MIGHT DIE.


Do the math. ~5.6 million vaccinated Israelis, 5.6 million divided by 2000 is a severe medical injury rate of around in 2800 people.

And no, we're not talking about "side effects", we're talking about things like Bells Palsy.

But keep lying. The elephant in the room is getting bigger and more obvious, and anyone who keeps ignoring this elephant in the room is going to look increasingly foolish.

Why do you think Pfizer have been told to do troponin level testing? Do you know what troponin level testing is for? Serious heart damage. Oh wait, I forgot, heart damage is now considered a "mild" thing. Don't worry if your heart is permanently damaged or you have a heart attack, heart attacks are "mild"

Recent Canadian figures show myocarditis rates alone around 1 in 5000 in Canada, just for myocarditis alone.

The truth has a way of eventually coming out.
Wotabout Sweden?
 

Daveogg

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2003
Messages
1,858
No but feel free to nit pick it while ignoring my questions.
I am trying to help you answer the question for yourself. However self correction requires the ability to see error in your thinking.
Lets take your latest faux pas.

"The 16% on medical aid probably includes at least 25% children so maybe some 12% of SA adults are on medical aid."

16% = Total (Adults and Children) on medical aid/ Total Population (adults and children)
12% = Total ( Adults ) on Medical aid / Total Population (Adults and Children )

What you should have done is

X% = Total (Adults) on medical aid/ Total Population (Adults).

What you would find is if the ratio of children in the population is higher (28%) than the ratio of children on a medical aid (25%), then the percentage of adults on a medical aid would be higher than 16% not lower.

So lets regress back to the start. You hypothesized that the reason we are not seeing vaccine injuries in the funded population is a combination of low injury rate (1/3000) and that 10% of those vaccinated are on a medical aid and therefore the private sector doctors would not see enough injuries to see them from the background noise.

I don't have the data on the funded/unfunded ratio of vaccination.
I would suggest that as a starting point we assume the ratio would be similar and then adjust as we find more evidence.

So lets start at 16% ( as opposed to your final estimate of 10% ). Now is a funded person more or less likely to get vaccinated?
The general opinion, and ventilated extensively on these forums is that the real reason why South Africa's vaccination rate is so low is "Access to vaccination is limited by barriers such as the location and numbers of vaccination sites, difficulties getting time off work, the cost of transport, not having an ID book, and lengthy vaccination queues, especially in lower-income and more rural areas."

My understanding of this is unfunded people face much higher obstacles to getting vaccinated than funded patients, a logical conclusion then is the vaccination rate of unfunded patients is likely to be significantly lower.

So starting at 16% I would now reestimate at 25%?

10% vs 25%, Nit picking?
But in the end I agree with your hypothesis, vaccine injury rates are so low the average medical practitioner in South Africa is unlikely to see them.
 

pinball wizard

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
29,525
For @Fulcrum29 and others interested in the security of the certificate.
It's always nice to see my tax-money put into good use.

What are the odds our geniuses in SA government wont simply piggyback on this, but create something new and barely secure?

I mean they want to recreate mxit, right?

Also, there's no scope for tenders and looting if they use existing tech.
 

Moby Grape

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 18, 2008
Messages
54,729
What are the odds our geniuses in SA government wont simply piggyback on this, but create something new and barely secure?

I mean they want to recreate mxit, right?

Also, there's no scope for tenders and looting if they use existing tech.
It's already based on the eu system.
 

Norrad

Expert Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2004
Messages
2,373
The first version of the verification app is apparently out and being tested at some SOEs. Our Post Office is testing it and I got to try it out a few minutes ago while collecting my Wish parcels (it's not a requirement to be scanned, but there is a printed notice above each booth asking if you have a digital certificate and a very excited/surprised clerk when I said I had one). It just flashed a green verified modal along with my name. It seems that the verification happens directly in the app as it was instant.
 

semaphore

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 13, 2007
Messages
14,045
10% vs 25%, Nit picking?
But in the end I agree with your hypothesis, vaccine injury rates are so low the average medical practitioner in South Africa is unlikely to see them.
In all fairness, he most likely got 30% for maths.
 

Daveogg

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2003
Messages
1,858
In all fairness, he most likely got 30% for maths.
I dunno.
Our brains are pretty good at "tricking" us into coming up with the answers that we want.
I may be guilty of the same, perhaps their is something glaringly obvious that I am missing?
 

Moby Grape

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 18, 2008
Messages
54,729
The first version of the verification app is apparently out and being tested at some SOEs. Our Post Office is testing it and I got to try it out a few minutes ago while collecting my Wish parcels (it's not a requirement to be scanned, but there is a printed notice above each booth asking if you have a digital certificate and a very excited/surprised clerk when I said I had one). It just flashed a green verified modal along with my name. It seems that the verification happens directly in the app as it was instant.
Pretty much, yes:

"it can be done locally on the device without sending the qr code data anywhere or even being connected to the internet, which respects all GDPR privacy concerns."
 

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
24,982
I dunno.
Our brains are pretty good at "tricking" us into coming up with the answers that we want.
I may be guilty of the same, perhaps their is something glaringly obvious that I am missing?
Yes it is quite difficult to see past personal bias. Especially when the science and maths show you you are wrong in your beliefs.
BTW, @Daveogg, did you see my PM?
 

flytek

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Messages
870
And you showed 0-14 yr olds make up 28% of the population. Do you want to rethink this statement?
No but feel free to nit pick it while ignoring my questions.
I am trying to help you answer the question for yourself. However self correction requires the ability to see error in your thinking.
Lets take your latest faux pas.

"The 16% on medical aid probably includes at least 25% children so maybe some 12% of SA adults are on medical aid."

16% = Total (Adults and Children) on medical aid/ Total Population (adults and children)
12% = Total ( Adults ) on Medical aid / Total Population (Adults and Children )

What you should have done is

X% = Total (Adults) on medical aid/ Total Population (Adults).

What you would find is if the ratio of children in the population is higher (28%) than the ratio of children on a medical aid (25%), then the percentage of adults on a medical aid would be higher than 16% not lower.

So lets regress back to the start. You hypothesized that the reason we are not seeing vaccine injuries in the funded population is a combination of low injury rate (1/3000) and that 10% of those vaccinated are on a medical aid and therefore the private sector doctors would not see enough injuries to see them from the background noise.

I don't have the data on the funded/unfunded ratio of vaccination.
I would suggest that as a starting point we assume the ratio would be similar and then adjust as we find more evidence.

So lets start at 16% ( as opposed to your final estimate of 10% ). Now is a funded person more or less likely to get vaccinated?
The general opinion, and ventilated extensively on these forums is that the real reason why South Africa's vaccination rate is so low is "Access to vaccination is limited by barriers such as the location and numbers of vaccination sites, difficulties getting time off work, the cost of transport, not having an ID book, and lengthy vaccination queues, especially in lower-income and more rural areas."

My understanding of this is unfunded people face much higher obstacles to getting vaccinated than funded patients, a logical conclusion then is the vaccination rate of unfunded patients is likely to be significantly lower.

So starting at 16% I would now reestimate at 25%?

10% vs 25%, Nit picking?
But in the end I agree with your hypothesis, vaccine injury rates are so low the average medical practitioner in South Africa is unlikely to see them.
I made a typo my apologies. Instead of saying:
"The 16% on medical aid probably includes at least 25% children so maybe some 12% of SA adults are on medical aid."
I should have said:
"The 16% on medical aid probably includes at least 25% children so maybe some 12%
are SA adults on medical aid." (who may have been vaccinated because children so far are not.)
I didn't want to adjust the 25% are children because the sector of the population with the higher ratio of children also have a lower than average medical aid rate and probably vaccination rate.
Further adjusting the 25% for children would require adjusting for the 0-14 vs the 0-18 to be called an adult as well as being offered a vaccine.
None of these points make it easy to estimate the true figures needed to pull off this calculation.

I was surprised that 16% of the population was on medical aid as opposed to the 10% guess I took initially.
Perhaps if your calculation above begins at 12% of the SA population eligible for vaccination and goes from there I could be out on my guesswork by a factor of 2 or 3 which would still leave only 1200 serious vaccine injuries seen by the private sector in SA.
You seem sensitive to it but many suspect if someone goes to hospital with heart problems a month or three after vaccination many many doctors will barely give a second thought to whether vaccines might have been partially responsible even if there was an underlying condition.
 

Daveogg

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2003
Messages
1,858
No but feel free to nit pick it while ignoring my questions.

I made a typo my apologies. Instead of saying:
"The 16% on medical aid probably includes at least 25% children so maybe some 12% of SA adults are on medical aid."
I should have said:
"The 16% on medical aid probably includes at least 25% children so maybe some 12%
are SA adults on medical aid." (who may have been vaccinated because children so far are not.)
I didn't want to adjust the 25% are children because the sector of the population with the higher ratio of children also have a lower than average medical aid rate and probably vaccination rate.
Further adjusting the 25% for children would require adjusting for the 0-14 vs the 0-18 to be called an adult as well as being offered a vaccine.
None of these points make it easy to estimate the true figures needed to pull off this calculation.

I was surprised that 16% of the population was on medical aid as opposed to the 10% guess I took initially.
Perhaps if your calculation above begins at 12% of the SA population eligible for vaccination and goes from there I could be out on my guesswork by a factor of 2 or 3 which would still leave only 1200 serious vaccine injuries seen by the private sector in SA.
You seem sensitive to it but many suspect if someone goes to hospital with heart problems a month or three after vaccination many many doctors will barely give a second thought to whether vaccines might have been partially responsible even if there was an underlying condition.
Lets leave the maths. I think we agree the figure is probably between 20-30% funded.

"You seem sensitive to it but many suspect if someone goes to hospital with heart problems a month or three after vaccination many many doctors will barely give a second thought to whether vaccines might have been partially responsible even if there was an underlying condition."

I guess we have to postulate on the pathophysiology of the myocarditis.
Myocarditis typically occurs following viral infections classically associated with Coxackie B virus. It is thought to be autoantibody immune mediated and direct viral cytotoxicity.

Post vaccination it is easy to consider a autoimmune response as responsible. You would then expect the incidence to match the peak in antibody titres at approx 2 weeks and waning after that. From what I have read the onset of these vaccine induced myocarditis seems within a few days of vaccination - too soon really for an antibody response.
So is the vaccine somehow causing a direct cytotoxicity.

HYPOTHESIS - No evidence for as far as I have read.
If the vaccine is inadvertently injected intravascular, and not intramuscular, it will be distributed according to organ blood flow. A significant percentage of your cardiac output goes to your myocardium. If mRna micelles are taken up by cardiac myocytes, they will express spike, and induce an inflammatory response - just as if the mRna had been taken up by your deltoid myocytes. Instead of getting a sore arm, you will get a sore heart. (I would love to know if people who develop a myocarditis had the typical deltoid pain or not ).

So who are the at risk group? Young males. Who have the most vascular deltoids? I would guess young males.

However, neither my hypothesis or immune mediated is likely to suddenly cause a myocarditis months post vaccination.
 

flytek

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Messages
870
There are other issues that seem to come to the fore from either covid or the vaccine like blood clots for instance.
And yes I understand current data says all problems with vaccines are even worse from covid.
But you know what? I don't trust goverments, corporations or individuals to be correct at any time.
Everyone and everything can be wrong now or proven wrong way later after years and years of deadly consequences. History attests to this.
Even if 99% of the brightest minds on the planet agree on something right now the future is very likely to look back on them as well meaning but unfortunately handicapped by then current knowledge and still very very wrong.
All you have to do is look back 200 years at what the best and brightest medical minds all held as common beliefs then to see what will happen to the common beliefs of the best and brightest medical minds of today in probably way less than 200 years for instance.
Just about everything we believe and hold dear in our little minds today will probably look like the silly thoughts of a 5 year old. Its really just a question of how long it takes.
 
Last edited:

Moby Grape

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 18, 2008
Messages
54,729
But you know what? I don't trust goverments, corporations or individuals to be correct at any time.
Just about everything we believe and hold dear in our little minds today will probably look like the silly thoughts of a 5 year old. Its really just a question of how long it takes.
Bull.
You got out of bed this morning and ate something manufactured, grown or processed by a corporation. You actually put it into your mouth and ingested it. If that's not trust then nothing is.
 

flytek

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Messages
870
I do my bit to try and eat as healthy as possible but I do not trust that what I think now will be seen as 'right' indefinately.
 
Top