Q&A: Lockdowns, quarantines, and other kinds of harm to democracy
Lockdowns, quarantines, and other kinds of harm to democracy
Question
What is the Rabbi’s opinion regarding this post by Feiglin? (If you have the energy to read it… it’s a bit long, but very interesting.)
https://www.facebook.com/MFeiglin/posts/3521022981310125
In addition, I generally find it hard to understand how a lockdown can be imposed on people in a democratic state. Aren’t restrictions on movement and fines for visiting one’s parents a serious violation of individual rights?
If this were a plague threatening to wipe out the entire universe, fine. But it isn’t. It causes excess mortality, and that’s terrible, but is it terrible enough to deprive people of basic rights?
Answer
I didn’t read it. I’ve had my fill of selective data quotes that everyone uses however they want. I’ve already heard arguments about Feiglin’s data and the experts he cites.
A lockdown can be imposed where there is danger to people, and it is the government’s responsibility to decide when the danger justifies it. This is not about concern for the person himself, but for other citizens whom he might infect. So even if one can argue about the lockdown and the logic behind it, this Feiglin-style, rights-based tirade is nonsense.
Discussion on Answer
There should be. That’s not the question. The question is whether those standards are met here or not, and that depends on the data and its analysis (and the forecast going forward).
Even if one can argue about the order of magnitude of the data, it’s still not at a level that justifies restricting people’s movement by meters.
The government could also decide that traffic accidents endanger the public and therefore everyone should stay home; after all, it is responsible for such decisions.
The question is whether such decisions aren’t a slippery slope, and whether there shouldn’t be certain standards that justify decisions like these.