I uploaded the argument presented here against the Green Passport to Rumble after it was censored on YouTube

Umm Confused GIF from Umm GIFshttps://tenor.com/embed.js

1. I think I addressed the claim at the time and also later in the video: For a healthy person who is not experiencing symptoms, there is a presumption that their mere presence does not endanger others with a risk that is beyond negligible, and the burden of proof is on others if they want to claim otherwise. From a superficial acquaintance with the materials, it does not seem that they meet it – and in any case, there is no serious discussion about it.

2. The theoretical harm that the green label is intended to prevent is also not harm to specific people. It cannot be argued that the private person who wants to receive a client who comes to his business *now* puts him at risk. After all, there is no reason to think that the business owner is infected. The vast majority of people do not get sick with a contagious disease, and when they do get sick, it is for a very negligible period of their lives. Even if the client had fallen for exactly this period of time, for the vast majority of the time the business owner would have felt symptoms and remained at home. Even if not, there was no reason to think that he was contagious (pre-symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals are not a significant source of infection according to studies), and even if he were contagious, there is no reason to think that the client would be exposed to a decent enough dose of virus-carrying aerosols to create a significant chance of infection, and even if so, there is no reason to think that he does not have natural protection, whether from other coronaviruses, from NK Cells or otherwise, which explains the high percentage of uninfected people (those in intimate contact with confirmed patients) that was observed; and even if, against most odds, he were to become infected, there is no reason to think that he belongs to the fraction of a percentage of the population in which infection is linked to mortality, and even more so if he is vaccinated, in which case the chances decrease by about 20 times (i.e., vaccination alone, assuming that the reported numbers are correct, reduces the chance of serious illness or death to significantly lower than seasonal flu).

In such a situation, if there were an infection, the cause of the infection would be attributed to the virus itself, and not to the person, because such negligible chances are not considered an element of human action or human responsibility, just as we have not assigned responsibility for the approximately 100,000 deaths attributed to the flu per year in the US to those who “infected” them.

It should be taken into account that researchers also talk about the benefits of exposing the immune system to the world, about which we can say: what does not kill – strengthens (for example, children who grow up in a very sterile environment are more likely to develop autoimmune diseases).

Of course, I do not pretend to touch on the professional debate, although there seems to be a systemic silencing of voices that do not align with the agenda, which makes me give them more weight, since an expert's chances of reaching the truth are lower if he is not willing to listen to the Bar Halugata.

Here we are already entering the question of the degree of risk inherent in any policy, and this can of course be discussed as I noted at the end of my remarks. Just don't forget that this is not a danger to one person but to the public, and for some of the public it is a direct danger even though you cannot now point to the specific person. It is like firing a missile into a crowd of people, one of whom will certainly be hit, but the chance for each of them is tiny. Do you think this is the same as acting towards Hamas with a policy that will allow it to develop missiles that may harm us in the future? Or even releasing terrorists who may harm people in the future. And this is different from the danger you are talking about, of the evolutionary development of a vaccine-resistant virus, where this is a risk that is, in my opinion, very large and not targeted at any one person (not even one concrete one among many).
But all of this deals with the level of risk. The main arguments you raised were general and principled, and I only addressed them here. You presented it as if there was no justification for restricting the freedom of a person who thinks differently. But if I think your policy poses a significant risk to me, I have the right to restrict you, even if you think otherwise. And certainly when I am not forcing you to take a vaccine, but rather I am simply not willing for you to enter my space if you are not vaccinated. If as a result you find yourself forced to get vaccinated (what you called passive coercion) – your problem.
Needless to say, I completely agree with the importance of listening to other opinions. This is true for all parties.

I demand that all parents with unvaccinated children who spread the deadly disease, may God have mercy, have their children executed - preferably by burning - for the complete destruction of the deadly virus that endangers Rabbi Michai and me. And anyone who goes out and drives on the road in a private vehicle has no blood and should rather throw themselves into the fiery furnace because they endanger Rabbi Michai and me.

As you know, Rabbi Michi and I are vaccinated, and therefore we are not allowed to be infected with the deadly virus. The function of the vaccine is to protect against deadly contact with those who are not vaccinated, may God have mercy on them.

There is only one question that I was unable to answer.
If the vaccinated are likely to be harmed by infection with other vaccinated people. From this it follows that the vaccinated themselves may also infect other people with measles.

And if so, what good did the scaremongers do by scaring the vaccinated people? The scared have solutions.

For many,

Flu-like diseases, RSV or about 5,000 deaths each year from infections in hospitals, 8,000 from smoking damage, some of which is passive, traffic accidents and more constitute a danger to the public. The question, as argued, is whether the risk exceeds the norm in a way that would justify a denial of rights, a denial that you would not think of taking with any of the other normal risks.

The fact that you cannot point to a specific person who creates the risk, you cannot point to a specific time when he creates it, and the action for which it is created, is the difference between people without a green card or drivers on the road for that matter, and an identified and specific terrorist who fires a missile into a crowd of people. The latter is a specific person, the action itself is dangerous, and the risk is direct, deterministic, and immediate, while with the former you don't know which of them will cause the annual mortality statistics, when they will cause it, and for what driving action this will happen. Depriving the unvaccinated of their rights would be similar in this respect to depriving drivers of their freedom of movement, even though the statistics are supposedly different (as in everything, because there are virologists who claim that if there were no deaths from corona, there would be deaths from flu-like viruses and other infections. The fact that corona won the fight against other viruses in the competition to control who will infect humans does not mean that without it there would be no alternative deaths). It should be noted, by the way, that the similarity to a vehicle exists only in the aforementioned respect, since driving a vehicle as a dangerous vehicle in its essence is fundamentally different from the natural presence of a healthy person in the vicinity of people, which cannot be considered dangerous in itself. A person cannot be held responsible for failures in the immune system of another person.

Regarding terrorists, Hamas members have already proven their dangerousness. Developing weapons is an act that leads to a concrete risk of death for them as a direct result of developing the weapon. When there is a proven enemy with malicious intent to harm, the approach is completely different, since the entire process, from planning to execution, is considered for this purpose as deterministic protection, and you can cut it off at the very beginning. Similarly, releasing terrorists (except for those who have "repented"): Islamo-fascist indoctrination pretty much ensures that they will try to harm again, and therefore the very release is the first step in a quasi-deterministic process that will lead to harm, and is itself as dangerous as releasing a hungry lion. Releasing terrorists is problematic in several other respects (criminals should be punished and the terrorist group to which they belong should not be rewarded).

The equal side to which I referred, in terms of the risk to "public health" Both of the unvaccinated and the vaccinated (according to the various theories) is that no person or action can be pointed to as the dangerous action itself (and as with car drivers). “Policy” in itself is not defined as a dangerous action. You claim that this is the essence of the discussion, but it does not seem so. You do not limit freedom of expression as a natural right, for example, even when it is a “dangerous policy” by all accounts (for example, for lowering morale or preaching to release terrorists and things like that).

I repeat again that once the debate is conducted on the level of how concrete and tangible the danger is, we have moved away from the principled discussions you described in the video, against which I wrote what I wrote. I also disagree with you about the degree of tangibleness of the dangers (a contagious disease at such a rate is not similar to the flu in any sense, and every person who carries it can be considered a ticking time bomb. And the numbers you cited are meaningless because you are referring to the numbers after preventive measures were taken, and even then it is not similar), but this is a debate that cannot be settled here, which is why I did not even start it.

Rabbi,

The discussion of how concrete the danger is is relevant in a certain sense, and indeed not the main thing. What is fundamental is the contrast between a situation such as a man possessed by a frenzy running with a knife drawn in the street, which in itself is considered a dangerous act and therefore even if the chance of any of the passers-by being harmed is small, the freedom of movement of the perpetrator of the act can be impaired, compared to the mere innocent presence of a healthy and asymptomatic person in the vicinity of other people, which is not defined as a dangerous act, has never been defined as such, and is considered not dangerous in itself (since the vast majority of asymptomatic people are not infected with an infectious disease without their knowledge and even if they were infected - as asymptomatic people they are not a significant source of infection). To argue otherwise - the burden of proof is on the claimant to prove why it is suspected that this specific individual is infected.

The problem lies in shifting the focus from the individual to the collective. The rights of all individuals must be denied, since statistically within collective A, there are some infected people who will infect people in collective B. This is unacceptable, since a "collective" is nothing more than a fiction for the masses and not an individual with rights. Otherwise, it would be acceptable in principle to deny freedom of movement to all drivers in the world, because statistically, many will be killed because of them - a kind of "collective punishment" that is not legitimate.

I disagree. When there is an epidemic that is contagious at such a rate and is likely to spread throughout the population, any suspect can be likened to a person who is causing concrete harm.
Most people without symptoms are not infected, partly because of preventive measures. And in general, a majority is not enough here. A significant minority is also problematic. A greater danger than a prohibition.
I do not think that an ontic assumption should be made here regarding the existence of collectives (although I personally tend to hold to it). Even those who do not hold such an opinion understand that public considerations sometimes override individual rights. People go to war when necessary even if they do not hold a collective metaphysics.
Regarding drivers, the situation is completely different. The main reason for this is the Gemara's opinion in the Book of Revelation (regarding Shabbat, a loss in signs for a method that indicates no Torah): None of us would want to be banned from driving on the streets, and therefore each of us is willing to take the risk on ourselves and others in order to be allowed to do so. Here it benefits ourselves as well. But this is not true regarding the coronavirus. Most people think that one should get vaccinated and that those who do not get vaccinated will bear the consequences of their actions. Here there is no general agreement on removing the restrictions because it does not benefit the vaccinated, but only those who do not want to get vaccinated. I should not take risks because you do not want to get vaccinated.
By the way, there is also a similar difference between the coronavirus and the flu. I have already written that the number of deaths from the flu is significantly lower (of course without preventive measures), but beyond that we already know that vaccines do not eliminate the flu. Every year the flu spreads a little differently, and therefore every year everyone is urged to get vaccinated. And from this you will understand that disabling us all because of the flu means disabling us forever. However, regarding the corona, a shutdown may eliminate the problem. At least until the thesis of those virologists you cited about the development of a vaccine-evading mutation is proven. I am sure that when that is the case, the attitude towards the corona will be more similar to the flu (to the extent of the other differences I mentioned). In short, no doubt eliminates certainty.

It should be examined whether one of the side effects of the vaccine is the loss of common sense.
If a vaccinated person can get infected, then he can infect.
And if he can't get infected, who cares if the other party is vaccinated or not.

And also regarding terminology, if someone who was injected with a substance that doesn't vaccinate him, and he continues to be afraid of the virus, that means one thing: he is not vaccinated. Therefore, we should stop saying vaccinated and those who are not vaccinated, but rather say cowards and those who are not cowards.

As mentioned, the question was whether it is possible to exclude a healthy, asymptomatic person who is innocently present in the vicinity of others from being a harmless carrier, as has been the case since the beginning of history (and until the beginning of Covid). You present several claims:

1. “There is a contagious epidemic”.

There can be no epidemic (in the conventional sense of the word) without excess mortality. In 2020, there was no excess mortality (see graphs below). Positive PCR results are not an epidemic.

2. “Most asymptomatic people are not infected, partly because of preventive measures”.

This is a controversial claim (many claim that there is no difference between countries that have taken preventive measures and those that have not). In any case, this statement does not exclude an asymptomatic person from being a harmless carrier.

3. “There is a significant minority, and the danger is worse than a prohibition”.

This is an unsupported claim in the current state of the morbidity data (which is very low). Even when it was high, there was not necessarily a significant minority, since there is no evidence that asymptomatic people constitute a significant source of infection (and there are indications that they are not) and even if there were one – such a minority would not constitute a danger since, as stated, there would be no epidemic.

4. “Public considerations sometimes override individual rights”. Such as going to war.

The question was whether it was possible to remove a person from his possession as harmless, and this claim does not undermine this in itself. In addition, it is not that simple: it is a fact that the Torah allows the fearing and tender-hearted not to participate (and if it is a mandatory war, the individual himself tends to want to participate as a matter of course since his life is in danger). Either way, it is only in rare emergencies like war, and the burden of proof (that this is an emergency of such extreme magnitude) is on the one who wants to deny natural rights, not on the conservative.

5. There is a social consensus on what risks to take (driving yes, unvaccinated people no) and it is the one that determines.

It doesn't seem so. If a person is forbidden to endanger the lives of others, social consensus cannot permit it any more than it can permit theft or rape. What does permit is the fact that the current driving action of a normative driver is not a life-threatening action (the risks are accepted only as a statistical calculation at the collective level, and for this the individual is not responsible).

6. Regarding the difference between corona and flu, it seems to me that few believe that corona will disappear once and for all. The more widespread opinion is that it will return from time to time as flu.

Mortality in 2020 (data from the Nirmol MS)

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ExZkaYTWEAQ9x0W?format=jpg&name=medium

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EzWamzrUYAY5KCa?format=png&name=900×900

The first link is wrong (the second is fine). Here is the link:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EwJrzdpXEAUxt8f?format=png&name=large

Copenhagen, you're just trying.
Today, only someone who has had a foreign substance injected into their body - engineered by companies with one goal, to make as much profit as possible, and originally engineered in a Chinese microbiology lab, and originally bred in bats - is considered a pure and innocent person. Batman.

This substance causes the injected person to develop schizophrenic thinking, in which on the one hand he calls himself and the other injected people "vaccinated" - and on the other hand he is forbidden from being exposed to the thing from which he is "vaccinated".

Copenhagen,
1-4 and the link. I have already answered the numbers. And there is also an ignoring of the drastic and immediate decrease in morbidity following the vaccination.
5. Of course it can. A person is allowed to take risks. This is the very explanation in the B”M there.
6. We will live and see. Right now you probably cannot determine this.

To the rabbi,

The principled discussion dealt with the claim that a harmless quarantine was not proven here for every person who is in the company of others. Although you responded to the principled discussion in the video, what is the answer based on? That the presence of a healthy and asymptomatic person (who did not break into his body cells with mRNA encoding a foreign protein) in the company of people “is like firing a missile into a crowd of people, one of whom will definitely be harmed” and ”when there is an epidemic that is contagious at such a rate…any suspect can be likened to a person who is harming in a concrete way”.

To this I responded that not only was the burden of proof for the person's quarantine not met, but that it is possible to positively prove that there is no epidemic, due to the numbers in the link, and in addition, that positive PCR rates (on the basis of which the epidemic claim was made) are irrelevant to this matter. For as researchers (including the inventor of PCR himself, who won the Nobel Prize), claim, a positive result does not mean that the person is infected or sick and has virtually no clinical significance.

Incidentally, the decline in the wave of morbidity in Israel and in several other places in the world occurred before or with the start of the vaccination campaign – and there is no way to explain it. For example, in Britain, within two or three weeks, there was a drastic 50 percent decline in morbidity, even though they barely managed to vaccinate between 2-10% during this time, and even for those vaccinated, not enough time had passed for effectiveness. They simply started vaccinating at the peak of the third wave or a little after it, such viruses usually appear in phases of 3 waves, after which there is a kind of immune balance, at least temporary, in the population.

Regarding 5, a person can take certain risks but cannot decide whether to put others in danger of death (not even the public), which is exactly how the comparison between driving and the hypothetical possibility of someone dying “because” of an asymptomatic person who is near them stands. (As mentioned, since exposure to viruses is normal and even necessary for the proper development of the immune system, even in such a situation, in my opinion, it is not the person who is the cause, but the virus or the failure of the victim's immune system, but that is a different discussion).

Last point,

Interesting questions, but we did not delve into them for reasons of focus

Why do you need evidence? When the presumption is shaken, it is not used. This is also a clear principle in halakha that when the presumption is itra'a, it is not used.
Regarding the decrease in morbidity, it seems to me that the argument is already bordering on delusion. If a miraculous correlation between the decrease in morbidity and vaccination in Israel is not enough proof, then I do not know what proof will satisfy you.
Regarding 5, it certainly can. Refer to the issue of B”M that I referred you to. I also fail to understand that if you do not accept this explanation, then how do you yourself explain the permission given to people to drive vehicles, especially when it is done for non-essential needs?

When an assumption is undermined, it can be ruled against by less strong means (for example, only one witness in a case where otherwise it would not have been sufficient) and not that it is annulled. In any case, there is no appeal here either. Perhaps there could be an appeal if it were proven that one of the members of a person's household was confirmed to be sick in the last week (this is also not certain, since the coronavirus cannot be defined as a dangerous virus for a normal person – experience shows that a normal human immune system knows how to overcome it). But we have never challenged the assumption that the presence of a healthy person without symptoms is not harmful in itself, certainly not in a sweeping manner for the entire population.

When any hypothesis is confirmed, the confirmation should in principle be repeated in similar observations. Otherwise, we would have to say that correlation does not necessarily mean causation. But the confirmation is not accepted in other countries (the UK, for example, as mentioned), and in many countries there was actually a significant increase in morbidity rates close to the start of vaccinations. In Israel, too, the correlation is not so remarkable:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E1pxemDXMAEdD-y?format=png&name=900×900
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E0675HHWUAIVoFM?format=jpg&name=large

I don't see how it can be concluded from the explanation in the BM that the majority can decide whether to risk the life of an individual. The entire discussion there is about the owner of the loss himself, who is willing to risk his property with not the best evidence (signs) because of the belief that others do not have them and in order to accept his loss. The owner of the loss is not risking the property of others or their lives. The permission to drive vehicles stems, as stated, from the fact that a specific driving action by a normative driver is not considered a dangerous action.

I think we've exhausted it.
Just a clarification regarding the issue of the B”M. You have a misunderstanding of the issue there. It's not about a waiver by a specific loss owner, but rather the exact opposite: a decision by all the loss owners. This explanation is meant to say that when a loss owner comes and says that he is not willing to have his loss reimbursed by signs because he does not waive the requirement for witnesses, his claim is rejected on the grounds that all the loss owners have waived. Just like in our case.

To summarize, the argument was that a collective is not a moral or legal entity with rights, and therefore the calculations of which policy would supposedly reduce the collective's exposure to risk do not in themselves negate natural rights or the individual's presumption of harmlessness. I have seen no refutation of this argument, or evidence that the individual can be excluded from this presumption. There was talk of a pandemic and contagion, but it has not been proven that there is or was a pandemic, or that the mere presence of a person alone in close proximity to others is likely to infect others with the virus in a way that endangers their lives.

In light of this, the video's argument stands, according to which a green passport is an illegitimate measure (apart from the other problems, which are essentially a totalitarian surveillance measure).

Regarding the issue, aren't you referring to this:

“Rav Safra said to Rava, "If a person does a favor for himself with wealth that is not his, but is given to him by the owner of a loss, he will give him signs and weights, and he will give him knowledge of the

Indeed, this is exactly the Gemara.

This interpretation does not seem necessary in the text. In order to provide an adequate response to the problem indicated by the question “And does a person do himself a favor with money that is not his own?” It seems better to say that the answer speaks of an explanation according to which the owner of the loss is considered one of the owners of the agreement (and therefore does himself a favor with his own money) and not part of a minority on whose behalf most of the owners of the loss make agreements.

Either way, it is not possible to extrapolate from a situation of loss in which there is already property at risk to the claim that the majority is permitted to decide when it is permissible to endanger the life of the minority (which is not within the framework of an action permitted according to the principle of double effect).

Just like driving and the like. One to one. If a person comes and says I didn't give up and therefore I demand my loss that was handed over to so-and-so in signs, what will they tell him? Obviously they will reject him out of hand. This is general social consent implicitly. Just like a person who argues against the permission for drivers to drive on the road and they tell him that he agrees implicitly within the framework of the general public.

Even for this opinion, any explanation exists in a situation where it is rational to think that the real owner of the loss is one of the consenting parties. But it seems that if a person comes before the delivery, claims ownership and demands that the loss not be delivered to someone else who claims ownership based on signs only, since he also has witnesses, we cannot say that there is no claim here that he also has witnesses.

This is not similar to the situation of a person who performs an action that puts another person in real danger of life, in which there is no reason to think that he agrees to it (certainly not when protest is expressed). On the other hand, a person who argues against the general permit for normative drivers to use the road and demands that future driving actions be prevented, we will have to ask him which driver exactly is endangering him and when. And he will not have a good answer. He will have to say that the danger is not to him but to the public, and does not arise from a specific action but from all actions. But a collective is not an entity with rights.

The collective has rights. The Germans of the West had the right to use the yellow badge to mark the contaminated, unvaccinated Jew. The Germans had a green badge. And that was an implicit social agreement. And that's what counts.

The more a person supports a dictatorship with totalitarian tendencies, the more they will use to justify the matter through imagined "social agreements" in the style of John Rawls and his progressive (or fascist) supporters, and in contrast to the idea of laws of justice and natural rights that no real or hypothetical social agreement has been given the authority to violate (as in the approach of Robert Nozick).

The video was taken down from Rumble for some reason and without any explanation. I uploaded it to Odyssey:

https://odysee.com/@Theologizer:1/The-Green-Mark:f