In general, I have only what my own eyes see…
By the way, how does the Rabbi explain the positive-test rates in the comparison between the general sector and the Haredi sector?

There are many explanations: crowding, lack of exposure to the media, poverty, the dismissiveness there was at the beginning, and also the problematic instructions that were given afterward (for example, to yeshiva students).

By the way, I live in Har Nof, which is considered a Haredi neighborhood; presumably in more Haredi neighborhoods the situation is much worse.
The Rabbi was fortunate with good neighbors; I wish for myself neighbors like that too.

Neighbors are something you can choose. If you’re so dissatisfied, why not change your surroundings?

Why does the Rabbi refer to the dismissiveness there was at the beginning and not refer at all to the dismissiveness today? Is the problem really crowding, poverty, lack of exposure to the media?
Attached:
https://mobile.kikar.co.il/article/375262
It seems to me that in the Rabbi’s words there is nothing but an attempt to judge them favorably, and no more.

Why not change surroundings? Indeed, I intend to move; there are better neighborhoods, Beit HaKerem etc…. Until today it wasn’t possible for livelihood reasons; then corona came and put everything into proportion… Thank God.

Benjamin, how does it feel after the fast, when we are pure and cleansed of every sin, and especially of matters of evil speech, gossip, and baseless hatred that we accumulated throughout the whole year? Eh?

With God’s help, Saturday night after Yom Kippur 5781

One reason for a large number of “positives” in a certain place is the large number of tests done in that place. As it says: “If you searched and found, believe it” 🙂 In some yeshivas they did proactive testing at the beginning of the term and at the end, something that was not done in any other sector. If they tested all the participants in the demonstrations and all the people sitting in cafés and at parties — presumably they would find cases there too.

Also regarding tests performed on someone who showed symptoms and on those who came into contact with him — it stands to reason that the number of “positives” will grow according to the number of people in the home, since inside the home people do not keep distance from one another. It’s no accident that they say about two-thirds of infections happen in the home. Maybe they should decree that everyone sleep in the street 🙂

Regards,
Shatz

Dear Shatz, the absolute number of positives is meaningless; the “percentage” of positives is not affected at all by the number of tests. It’s a shame about the time you’re investing in this absurd claim.

With God’s help, 11 Tishrei 5780

To Benjamin Gurlin — greetings,

Your argument was addressed in the second paragraph of the comment you responded to.

The percentage of “positives” in testing rises when the number infected in the home grows, where no distancing whatsoever is kept. If in neighborhood X there is an average of 3 people per household, and in neighborhood Y there are on average 9 people per household — it is reasonable that the percentage of “positives” will be three times as high.

If the percentage in neighborhood Y is less than three times that in neighborhood X, one should apparently conclude from this that the people of neighborhood Y are more careful about maintaining distance outdoors, do not go to wild parties, and do not sit packed together without masks in cafés, and do not jump around and hug each other at demonstrations.

Regards,
Shatz

Another factor that lowers the percentage of positives among “don’t-care” people of high socioeconomic status is that symptomatic people do not go to be checked by a public doctor who will report or send them for testing. Someone who does not want to be tested and enter quarantine etc. can hide his condition via a private doctor. All the more so at demonstrations, where whoever cares for their financing can also care for concealing the results.

A serious statistical test can be done by precise segmentation of the population according to sector size, as is done in election polls. Has anyone thought of doing such a test?

Regards,
Shatz

In my opinion, in any case all this “medidation” is unnecessary.

After all, the basic protective measures — masks, distancing, preventing dense gatherings, and insistence on ventilation — can and should be taken in any case, and with them it is possible to continue living economic and social life, to the extent that people are careful and don’t go wild.

A “lockdown” is not helpful, because once it is opened the situation will return to what it was before with even more storm, and the medical and psychological dangers in destroying economic and social life are far greater than the dangers of corona.

That is to say: whatever the statistics show, such-and-such percentages — what difference does it make for practical conduct? We have no escape except maintaining as cautious a life routine as possible while taking the basic protective measures.

Shatz, come on, let it go…

And in short (to Benjamin Gurlin)

Most infections happen in the home, and therefore it is obvious that the higher the number of people in the home, the greater the number infected.

In order to know the effectiveness of the protective measures taken outside, one must divide the rate of “positives” by the average number of people in the household; only then can one compare different areas or sectors.

Regards,
Shatz

Someone who, when infected, infects twice as many people has to be twice as careful. Glad to help.

Secular people are sufficiently obtuse and stupid to believe and think that the highest purpose of their existence is not to get sick with corona.

And in short, one might say that religious compulsiveness is a kind of “Karaism” — distrust of the tradition of the forefathers or of accepted halakhic rulings. A person “builds an altar for himself” and is stringent in matters where the halakhic decisors instructed leniency, and about this the liturgical poet said: “I rejected Your Torah and chose my own torah” (from “To You, My God, Is My Longing,” recited by Sephardim at the beginning of Yom Kippur).

There is room to practice piety, to beautify the commandment, and to go beyond the letter of the law when there is a basis in Jewish law for such stringency, but here too one must be extremely careful that it not lead to irritability or arrogance and to hurting and belittling others, as Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzzatto explained in Mesillat Yesharim, in the chapter on “The Weighing of Piety.”

Regards,
Shatz

The above comment was posted here by mistake. Its place is in the discussion on “Religious and OCD.”

Regards,
Shatz

With God’s help, 12 Tishrei 5781

And by the test of the outcome, it turns out according to the data given today by the Director-General of the Ministry of Health that the mortality rates from corona in the Haredi sector are lower than in the general population, even though the rate of infection in the Haredi population is higher (28% versus 15%) — the mortality rates among Haredim are lower than in the population as a whole.

With the blessing “The more Torah, the more life,”
Shatz

And as I already explained above, for a comparative measurement of the effectiveness of protective measures outdoors, one needs to divide the percentage of infected by the average number of people in each household.