Answer

I really did not agree.
Let me begin by saying that I definitely criticize Haredi conduct during the coronavirus period and in general as well (I even wrote, to my regret, that in light of their conduct here I can understand the outbreak of pogroms like those in Ukraine, and I took a lot of heat for that in Haaretz and Makor Rishon, and of course on my own site too I was declared an inciter). I also criticize, and have sharply criticized, the government’s conduct during the coronavirus period and in general. But the criticism you brought here is completely illogical. I’ll add that I’m writing this as someone who was delighted beyond measure by the permission not to pray with a quorum (it really doesn’t speak to me at all). But I understand that there are people for whom this is important, and that is my starting point.
1. The government changed guidelines for all sectors on a daily basis. You can always ask whether the decisions are the result of pressure or of professional, substantive judgment. I don’t think the two can be separated. Was the permission to demonstrate really based on an essential need? Doesn’t it harm public health? Is it impossible to hold an online demonstration? By the way, I criticized the demagogic argument that compares a demonstration to prayer (although comparing a funeral to a demonstration makes more sense), but here I am not making a comparison. I’m only giving an example of another decision made under this same tension. Do you think the consideration of 100 meters or 500 meters from home is a purely professional consideration? I understand mathematics fairly well. I cannot imagine any equation from which that could have emerged. Is a gathering of up to 100 people or 10 people the result of a mathematical equation? And are the changes in those numbers every day the result only of professional considerations? A government, even one that conducts itself logically and reasonably (which of course is not our example), makes decisions based on health considerations together with pragmatic considerations, and that is entirely legitimate. So why is changing the guidelines regarding prayer after two days unreasonable? All the guidelines here changed every day. By the way, the change after two days could also have stemmed from the fact that in the original decision they were not aware of the importance of prayer with a quorum, and the protests showed them that this is very important, so they decided to accept the protests and change the policy. That seems legitimate to me.
2. The question whether this is a doubtful or certain case of danger to life is of course a matter of degree. Driving on the road is dangerous too. So should we forbid it because of a possible danger to life? There are always considerations of running a normal life alongside concern about dangers. It’s not 1 or 0.
3. Infections in synagogues or yeshivas say nothing whatsoever about prayer outdoors. So they drew the conclusion and completely forbade prayer inside a building, but decided to permit prayer outdoors. That does not necessarily contradict the epidemiological data.
4. And the most demagogic point, if you’ll forgive me, is the claim about the struggle for freedom of worship. The Haredim never claimed that they support freedom of worship, and they also do not need to support it in order to file such a petition. And that is for two reasons: 1. In our country there is a law that requires freedom of worship to be granted (which they may oppose). Now they are petitioning on its basis so that they will be allowed to worship in their own way. That does not mean that they support freedom of worship for everyone else as well (which I personally regret, of course). 2. Even if they did support freedom of worship for everyone, they would still be allowed to stand up for their own rights without fighting for everyone else. If someone petitions the court so that money unlawfully taken from him will be returned, is he obligated to fight for everyone else’s right to do the same? And even if in principle he opposes property rights, does he not still have the right to petition that property rights be applied to him too (assuming they do exist in law, even though he does not like that)?
Their struggle against freedom of worship (for others) is a struggle to change and shape the law. Their petition here is being made within the framework of the existing law. Can someone who opposes a certain law not insist that, so long as it exists, it should be upheld according to its terms?
5. I’ll note that I too oppose their policy against freedom of worship as such, but not because they are inconsistent; rather because in my view it is improper and immoral.
6. By the way, do you support freedom of worship? I assume you do. So why don’t you support their petition for their freedom of worship? Apparently you allow yourself the very dissonance that you protest in them. You support freedom of worship, but you have an interest in not advancing the freedom of the Haredim. So they are acting just like you. If we’re talking about consistency, then if they are inconsistent, it seems to me that you are too. At the margins of my remarks here I’ll only add that the question of harm to public health should not be dragged in here, because that is a different argument. You raised the argument about consistency independently of the argument about policy for protecting health, and so I am discussing it separately as well.