Coronavirus patient in public hospital when missiles fall
Have a good week.
An institution in Ashdod that includes boarding rooms in trailers, and in the event of an alarm, everyone enters the public shelter.
One person has been infected with the coronavirus and is supposed to be in isolation.
In the event of an alarm, should he enter the public shelter or stay in his room? From a halachic, moral, and legal perspective.
The question is both his own, how he should act, and also the public’s, whether he can be prevented from entering.
Is there a difference between a situation where a person has a fiduciary right to a shelter (such as shared property in a residential building) and a situation where the property belongs to the state?
And is there a difference between a situation in which a person has been diagnosed with the disease and a situation in which he is only required to isolate due to concern (for example, having arrived from abroad?).
Not a simple question. First, you should know that there is no real danger from missiles. The chance that a missile will hit where you are is very small. The obligation to enter the shelters is mainly because it is a public place and one of them will most likely be hit. But the danger to a specific person is very small. Therefore, in principle, if there is a problem entering the shelter, there is definitely a reason not to enter. On the other hand, you can enter the shelter and be careful with masks and keeping your distance. Therefore, I tend to think that if you can be careful enough, it is still worth entering the shelter. If it is small and there are a lot of people in it, then in my opinion it is better not to enter.
The question of the financial right is irrelevant. If only you have the financial right and others do not, then of course you have the right not to let them in (I did not say that it is a mitzvah to do so, only that it is your right). But if everyone has the right, then there is no difference. At most, it can be said that others do not have the right to prevent you from entering. But if the instructions of the Ministry of Health and the Home Front Command in such a situation are not to enter, then the Dina of Malkhuta obliges you not to enter anyway.
If you are diagnosed with the disease, the obligation to check whether you can be kept in a shelter is doubled, especially if there are others who are not vaccinated. Although, if someone did not get vaccinated by their own decision, you do not have to give them anything. The risk of infection is their problem. If they do not want to get infected, let them leave the shelter.
You wrote about the danger from missiles:
“It should be known that there is no real danger from missiles. The chance that a missile will hit where you are is very small. The obligation to enter shelters is mainly because it is a public matter and one of them will be hit with a high probability”.
I think the same is true regarding Corona.
The actual danger to the individual is zero. The obligation to be careful is because it is a public matter and one of them will be hit with a high probability (if we are talking about the danger of death. Infection can cause other damages, such as mandatory isolation and loss of work days, etc.’).
So what is the difference between the dangers?
1. With Corona, the chance of getting infected if you are sick and close to other people is not small at all. What will happen to those who are infected? It depends on their age and medical condition. Therefore, each case is different. Maybe you are right about the shelter where you know in advance that there are only young people or that everyone is vaccinated. But if it is about people at risk who are not vaccinated, this is a very tangible danger. Not to mention that those who get infected can infect others, which is not true with the missiles.
2. Beyond that, there is a distinction here (which I am wondering if it is only formal), between a situation in which you introduce a risk factor into the body and the question is only whether it will harm (the chance of this is small) and a situation in which there is generally a small chance of being harmed.
3. And finally, if people fear differently about the two risks, even if they are wrong in your opinion, it is still their right for us to consider their concerns and not impose our opinion on them.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
