Green passport

You've put me in a corner, because I'm both your student and a Feiglin and common sense holder.
1. The model people's claim is that lockdowns definitely don't reduce morbidity. There is certainly debate about that. To say there is no debate about that is a serious mistake. Contact causes infection, so a lockdown that prevents contact is supposed to be beneficial, but on the other hand, locking everyone in their homes means that everyone will be in a closed space that is much more contagious than an open space, so a lockdown on the other hand is supposed to be harmful.
2. Are you aware of the fact that recently 18 states in the US began the process of lifting all restrictions? It started in Texas and ended in Alabama and Wyoming. It seems to me that it's hard to say that common sense claims are delusional or dubious if many states are going in their direction.
3. Here's a link to the Florida governor's remarks in an interview on Fox News. He says from minute 4:15 to minute 5:10 that Florida, with the second highest number of elderly people in the US, and without a lockdown, came in 26th place in mortality per capita in the US. Above Florida in mortality, you can find younger states that have a lockdown. Therefore, he came to the conclusion that lockdowns are not based on facts. https://youtu.be/H-OX7J3QLuA?t=253
4.”For example, the claim that the lockdown was invented by a dictatorship that has no respect for rights and therefore should not be used is demagogy that I have seen few like it in my lifetime” The formulation of the claim you wrote is my interpretation of the video presented above. The main point of the claim is that a lockdown was never tried and was never discussed in the scientific literature before the lockdown of the city of Havana. Embarrassingly, I don't have the tools to test this claim, but I do know the Talmudic rule that says that a person does not lie about something that can be easily discovered. To contradict this, we would have to find a scientific article/some scientist who talks about total lockdowns before 2020. Is there one? I didn't find one (although, again, I'm not sure I did a good job searching)
5.”Is there any country in the world that implemented the lockdown just because the Chinese invented and implemented it?” That's not the claim. The claim is that China invented the lockdown and it influenced everyone else to follow its path (via the World Health Organization, probably in the video). No one is going to shoot people in squares. How did that come out of things…? The conspiratorial scent didn't necessarily come out of this. I don't know why you made that link.
6. Regarding the claim of “consciously” That the model is hidden by the data, from a very simple Google search, one can see that the mortality in Sweden without lockdowns in 2020 is not far from previous years and even lower than in 2012 (relative to the size of the population). These are obvious facts that everyone can check. How can one still accuse the model of lack of practical applicability?

Hello.
I don't see what corner this is about. There is no obligation to accept my words, even if you consider yourself my student. This is part of what my students are supposed to learn from me. 🙂

This debate seems pointless to me, because the claims are all irrelevant to the last one (just like those of ‘common sense’). I will explain briefly:
1. It is clear from the explanation that a lockdown reduces morbidity, even if in the nuclear family it can increase. It is much more controllable and treatable when we are in lockdown. It seems to me almost a tautology, or at least very basic science.
2. The decision of countries to lift a lockdown does not mean anything. For two reasons:
A. It could be because of economic considerations and not because of the claim of reducing morbidity. I wrote this in my words.
B. What's more, I am not sure that these countries are the pinnacle of scientific thinking. There are other things that are done in states in the US that I wouldn't run to imitate.
3. Not to mention a quote from the governor of Florida, who is a well-known epidemiologist. This is seen mainly in light of his comparison, which is of course baseless. There are counterexamples in every direction. That's not how science works. There are also those who have smoked their entire lives and reached the age of one hundred. So what? So smoking is beneficial to health? This is the type of argument made by conspiracists and alternative medicine people. It seems that the governor of Florida is probably a pretty small expert in epidemiology.
4-5. That's exactly what they claimed. The question of respect for human rights is irrelevant and they introduced it. Feiglin and his friends of course see it as the face of everything. So what if China lacks respect for human rights? So therefore there is nothing to learn from it? The question is whether the quarantine is useful or not, and not who invented it. Then the economic cost must be considered and then a decision must be made. The fact that it was invented in China is irrelevant in any way that I can see. This is ad hominem demagogy at its finest.
You definitely have the tools to test the claim about the invention of the lockdowns in China. For starters, read the articles I referred you to and you will see that lockdowns were already in place during the Spanish flu and more. What does it matter if it's TOTAL or not? What is TOTAL anyway? Even today, they don't really do TOTAL. Again, demagogy at its finest.
6. Mortality comparisons to previous years are irrelevant. This is another old claim by conspirators and corona deniers. The question is what would have happened without the lockdown, and how dense it would have been on the timeline (flattening the curve) and not just what happens over the course of an entire year.

I think these claims well demonstrate the failures and demagogy in the arguments of people with “(un)sound logic”.

“There is no debate that they reduce morbidity.”

In other words, until Corona, there was no morbidity in the world…

If you look at just one issue, you immediately understand that the lockdown increases morbidity, perhaps not in the short term, but in the long term. A few months ago, it was announced that the lockdowns led to a significant increase in the weight of a significant percentage of the country. And this in itself is enough to cancel out all the benefits of the lockdown, which was intended to slow the rate of infection with Corona.

And the rabbi forgot that the lockdown was not intended to prevent morbidity from Corona at all, but to prevent overloading of hospitals.

But if we talk about public health concerns, which are the most important issue in the world, and to put everyone who doesn't think so, perhaps we should consider establishing ghettos and labor camps specifically for those who injected Pfizer's substance into their bodies.

Hello to Oren and Rabbi

We have witnessed an amazing phenomenon in the past year (in my humble opinion…) in which smart and intelligent people, with Torah and general education – simply decided that on the issue of Corona, reason is thrown to the side….

Every fact, every data that does not support the hysterical policy – is immediately rejected with the excuse of “an invention of conspirators/ignorants/fraudsters” (where did the criticism of ad hominem arguments go…)

A recent example: the mass Purim parties that were supposed to have a terrible outbreak and in fact happened differently – the gates of excuses have not yet been closed and the main thing is not to admit, God forbid, the failure of the concept

I have been unable to understand the reason for this…

Maybe we should let time take its course…

On behalf of Yehuda:

Due to a technical problem, the response below does not appear in the last reply titled “Green Passport”:

A. Here is a reference to the claims of the Davidson Institute article, which is the more serious of the two you cited (according to “Madan” himself):

https://mobile.twitter.com/MatanHolzer/status/1349120093792448512

(Both articles are a response to Guy and Orly's film:

https://youtu.be/Vh_amXstFAQ

which interviews experts who know something about the subject.)

B. Among the leaders of the model are senior experts in epidemiology and the spread of epidemics, as can be seen in the Wikipedia entry for the model you referred to.

C. The claim is that they copied the closures from China without epidemiological justification.

See a 2007 document, regarding estimates of epidemics in Israel, which is the subject of the film, which only talks about a lockdown when there are tens of thousands of deaths, because of the enormous damage caused by a lockdown.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.health.gov.il/Subjects/emergency/preparation/DocLib/tora/BIO_TORA_PANDEMIC_FLU.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjXyPvQrK_vAhU5IMUKHew5ABMQFjAEegQIFxAC&usg=AOvVaw2U4-WIjHC38l-3YHRgEzyQ

On the enormous cumulative damage of lockdowns, compared to their doubtful benefit, see the words of Prof.’
Asher Elhayani:

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=172989197928728&id=110430917517890

D. On justifying the green passport policy, see the response of senior experts here:

https://m.facebook.com/machatzlakorona/photos/a.100865091940634/133614388665704/?type=3&source=48

Many thanks and a blessed and blessed month!

Regarding the effect of the quarantine on direct mortality from Corona, beyond the analysis of Prof. Asher Alhayani on the cumulative damage following the lockdown, the argument is that it is clear that at first glance the lockdown shows a graph of a decrease in morbidity and mortality, but that, in the end, in epidemiological analysis, nothing is gained by allowing the lockdown, for which the same price is paid later as if there was no lockdown, which in the case of no lockdown is also a fading wave due to immune equilibrium (herd immunity).

This stick is relevant to the first and second waves, when the vaccines have not yet arrived.

In this context, it should be known that there is a difference between the immune equilibrium (herd immunity) needed in the summer, when the virus is “weaker”, and the immune equilibrium needed in the winter - see Sweden.

On behalf of Oren:

1. “It is clear from the explanation that a lockdown reduces morbidity” Professor Udi Kimron, an immunologist, thinks differently https://youtu.be/mW4rxiNc-jQ?t=1168 (the link sends to the relevant minute). Similarly, Dr. Dan Yamin, an epidemiologist, says that school closures increase mortality https://youtu.be/mW4rxiNc-jQ?t=1293
How do you disagree with experts in the field, and yet it happens to be a tautology or basic science…?
2. This is clearly not proof, I did not seek to win the debate on this, this is just assistance. Of course, countries can be wrong. Overall, I would expect that the level of disregard for common sense would decrease if many countries followed their path.
3. The Holocaust on cigarettes is good, I need to think about it. To begin with, let me say that we know for sure about the dangers of smoking, but we do not know about the effectiveness of closures.
4 and 5. The fact that closures were invented in China is a reason for suspicion. Of course, closures can be useful. I am just arguing that every idea that comes out of there should be examined with suspicion, due to our familiarity with the regime. During the Spanish flu, there were restrictions on certain events. The definition of Total is the closure of a country Shlima, border closures, businesses, etc. Here Dr. Avi Mizrahi says that a general lockdown in this sense did not exist until the Corona

In minute 18, the film presents a plan from the Ministry of Health from 2007 for dealing with epidemics. In a level 5 epidemic, which is like 1918, and which claimed 45 thousand lives, specific closures must be carried out on outbreak centers. In other words, even then, a general lockdown is simply out of the question, no matter what
6. “The comparison to previous years is irrelevant” How does that make sense…? The exclusive criterion for examining a policy is examining the results on the ground. In our case, examining the number of deaths. And the exclusive criterion for examining the number of deaths is a comparison to other years that are known to be reasonable years in terms of mortality. Where is the flaw in my words? What do you mean by “what would have happened without the lockdown”? And I did not understand what you said about the density on the timeline.

My answer:
The density on the timeline means that even if there are a small number of deaths throughout the year but their number in a particular week is very large, this creates a problem that requires dealing with (flattening the curve).
Beyond that, I don't see anything new here. As far as I'm concerned, the discussion is exhausted.

I don't see how it is possible to justify the denial of individual rights such as freedom of movement, worship, occupation, etc. due to considerations of public health or the common good.

The prohibition against lying, for example - according to several philosophers - remains in force even if a good result results from it. Telling a lie is an evil act in itself, and the good result does not change the evil inherent in the act itself. The same applies to us: the question is only whether the action that a person is going to perform is defined in essence as a *dangerous action* for others who are exposed to the result of the action in a concrete and direct way. The fact that a lockdown is supposed to improve public health (let's assume that this is completely true) is irrelevant.

Similarly, regarding mRNA injections - which harm the normal human function of cells - as I argued here not long ago.

Exceptions are actions permitted under the principle of double effect.

Continued Copenhagen Continued, and all flesh will see together the [censored] failures that are deontology.

For those who come from the perception that the state (and in the national language, and in the German language, the national language), is the supreme value, then it is certainly possible and even obligatory to deny individual rights when it benefits the government.
And all means are also kosher to make the general public believe that the state cares for them and not that they are being sacrificed for the state.

So continue to say “with the help of God” while you are in supreme fear of the corona.

And the Lord said, Because this people draw near with their mouth and with their tongues, and their heart is far from me, and their fear is a commandment taught by men. Therefore, behold, I will make this people strange and wondrous, and they shall perish: the wisdom of their wise men shall be hid, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid.

Copenhagen,
I have written here more than once that even the categorical imperative and other abstract and general principles, when applied, need to add a dash of common sense. Application is not a logical operation of the theoretical principle, just as it is not the case in halacha, nor is it the case in morality. Understanding the situation and the art of application are arts of mature people. Kant did speak of the prohibition of lying even where it arises in human life. He too has not yet matured. I would not want to be dependent on the kindness of such a moral child.

Hence a reply to Tulginus.
Such a conclusion is not a flaw in deontology itself, but in the mixture between it and common sense. I was a boy and I am old, and I have not found a body good for a healthy mixture of these two. Each of them separately is problematic (and even in implementations. See column 122, regarding practical implications of deontology).

When you say “in a mix with common sense” what do the words in a mix with consequentialism mean?

[All sorts of types have gathered here for the holy inn of law, and I am the type whose mind does not absorb deontology for its own sake, neither much nor little. I am holding back from pouring insults and insults on it forty times in a Hazon Ish class, so at least I sipped a little out of pleasure (and pride) to see into what icebergs deontological piety drives its followers who drink the poisoned cup. I came only to tease, and even those who want to tease me are always welcome.]

Indeed, just as Pikuach Nefesh rejects moral and halakhic prohibitions, it also rejects the commandments of the categorical imperative. Simple for those who understand.

And why does the pikuach nefesh of five infants of a rabbinic family, towards whom a cursed train is traveling, not reject the moral and halakhic prohibition of taking the life of someone standing on a bridge?

In my opinion, it's not necessarily not repugnant, but there is a side that is not repugnant. This side is based on the fact that the value of life is infinite, or at least the gap is not large enough to justify a prohibition on murder. To permit it, you have to assume that the gap between the life of one and the life of five is strong enough to justify a prohibition on murder.

In the first option, what is the difference between “the value of life is infinite” and giving up the healthy combination that you have not found for your body better than it.

[In my opinion, even in order to save one person, you can choose not to save the person on the bridge, but I understand that this is not a healthy combination, etc.]

In this case, there is indeed no room for confusion. But that does not rule out such confusion at all.

The case in which a person is faced with a dilemma whether to utter a lie or to give an answer that will allow an act of murder is very extreme and far from situations in the concrete world. For, first, the whole dilemma arises only when it is not possible to harm the pursuer's body in a way that would thwart the action - an option that is usually safer in terms of the interests of the pursued.

Second, there is no moral flaw in misleading an enemy by ambiguity or obscure answers, and it is almost always possible to mislead a bully who does not deserve a true answer in such a way that the sentence will be true according to a certain norm, provided that it is not clearly unreasonable for speakers of the language to understand that this is the possible meaning (for example, in response to a pursuer asking whether you saw someone, you can say "Yes, he turned left" even though the person you saw running to the left was someone else who was there two hours ago or another enemy who just passed by). For such a statement truly reflects what the speaker thinks and uses words according to the meaning that is truly represented in them.

In any case, there is no dispute that there is a theoretical logical possibility of a dilemma between lying and not preventing murder, and a serious person who is usually in such a situation will perceive that he has here a special personal order in a temporary order to carry out the defective act and who knows whether at such a time you have come to the kingdom – in the sense of “time to do for’ you have violated your Torah” or “an offense for its own sake”.

For our purposes, it is not that I really think that dictatorial regulations are likely to improve the state of the nation. We do not have epistemological access to all the results and consequences of our actions until the end of all generations, but since maintaining the natural moral law is consistent with human nature, we can be confident that this will ultimately lead to the best results, even if in some narrow perspective a theory can be put forward that would calculate a different result in the limited field in question.

This is similar to the argument that economists sometimes make that government intervention in free interactions between people, even if done with good intentions, tends to lead to undesirable results that cannot be predicted in advance – Unintended Consequences – and in many cases it is also impossible to know in retrospect that they came about as a result of the intervention, results that are ultimately worse than the benefit that the intervention was intended to bring.

To Rav and Tolginus,

In my opinion, the approach that says it is permissible to kill directly and uninvolved so that one's body will save the lives of five people, and consequentialism in general, are at the center of the problem of human arrogance that leads to the rejection of moral laws, in the sense of becoming like God. Their consequence is that one believes that he is the one who will decide whether another person is going to continue living or not, if he does not fit well into his own balance of utility calculations, and he is the one who will carry out the act of terminating the life he has decided on.

The more rational approach recognizes the limits of his perceptions and the status of man as subject to natural moral law. It says: We have not been given the authority to do so. We act only within the framework of the authority given to us. And we do not have permission to kill, impose forced mass house arrests ( = lockdown) or even commit a minor offense such as lying - just so that what we see as a greater good will result from it. We should not pretend to “manage” global mortality rates, and it is ridiculous to think that we are capable of doing so.

Man is required to refrain from evil and do good only: murder must not be committed. The freedom of an innocent person must not be restricted (unless he directly endangers another person in a concrete way – which is a permissible risk-removal action according to the principle of double effect and not an evil action on his part), and so on. Consequential approaches inevitably give rise to dictatorships, and they have failed wherever they have been tried. On the other hand, the more natural law is preserved, the more society has prospered.

The governor of South Dakota – an example of a powerful person who knows his place:

Copenhagen

A. In principle, you distinguish between action and inaction and I do not. If we were not given the authority to kill so-and-so by throwing him off a bridge, then we were not given the authority to kill so-and-so by running him over by a train. It is exactly the same thing. And there is no difference in the world at all between the one who lets so-and-so die and the one who kills him with his hands. Because from the root of the erroneous distinction between stand up and do and sit down and do not do, a viper emerged and a flying snake spawned.

B. In terms of results, you claimed that deontology actually leads to better results. First of all, welcome to the club, and this is certainly a respectable matter, even in the language I speak. I do tend to think that deontology developed out of the slippery slope issue that is reflected in your words, and is one of the tools for establishing a “fundamental” prohibition on something that could lead to problematic results. But that is another vision for another time.
If a general rule of thumb is needed, then the rule “never kill without threat or trial” is preferable to the rule “kill when you think it is right.” But when I personally think about what is right, I don’t need to look for general rules of thumb that can be sold to the masses without giving lessons, but can think about each case on its own merits.

C. The decision not to impose a lockdown also has unknown consequences. You seem to be saying that because we cannot know what the consequences will be, then by default we will take “natural law.” And I suggest that because we cannot know what the consequences will be, then we will choose the option that we think will lead to the best results.