Forgive me, sir, but it is simply madness to so naively trust the recommendations of the Ministry of Health to get vaccinated.
Forget for a moment ignoramuses and conspiracists like me—there are quite a few serious doctors and scientists raising weighty arguments against giving a vaccine whose own developers admit that its long-term effects have not been tested.
Usually vaccine testing takes years; here they significantly cut corners.
Are we supposed to calmly accept that we were chosen to be guinea pigs?

My honor forgives you, sir, and even humble little me forgives. But it is madness to believe all kinds of people speaking in their own name and bearing no responsibility for what happens, in a case where major bodies are standing behind it (like the FDA) and people who will take responsibility if something goes wrong. Everyone chooses who their experts are and who the conspiracists are.

Our rabbi has taught us that “great ones” do not have an automatic seal of approval on every statement and opinion, and everything must be examined on its own merits and weighed rationally…
Does that principle apply only to great Torah scholars, but when it comes to the “greats” of medicine and government we become like the last of the fundamentalists, God forbid, and swallow their rulings with thirst and submission (rulings that literally concern life and death)?

Why should we accept without criticism the medical guidelines imposed on us, even when intuitively they seem contrary to common sense?

Dear Alex. We are old friends, and precisely because of that I will allow myself to point out your lack of listening and the blatant tendentiousness that leads you to really childish logical errors.
Where did I write that one should not relate critically to doctors? Why do you think the guidelines are contrary to intuition? Are you a doctor, and I didn’t know it? Again and again you call for critical thinking, and confuse critical thinking with automatic rejection of everything said by the establishment. I already wrote to you that this is exactly the opposite of critical thinking.
The guidelines to vaccinate concern health, not life and death (the “terrible” dangers supposedly expected from obeying the instructions are unknown to anyone. At most there are dubious claims that it was not tested enough). By contrast, not following them is a matter of health, and here it is also a matter of life and death.
And finally, in a field connected to expertise, it makes a lot of sense to accept the opinion of an expert, certainly when I do not understand that field. In the instructions of “da’at Torah” there is no expertise. In Jewish law there is indeed expertise, and therefore I think that someone who is not a Torah scholar would certainly do well to appoint a rabbi for himself and listen to him. But even in a field of expertise I would not obey blindly and would try to check. But not by myself, because I understand nothing about it, and in my estimation neither do you.

Alex, in this case what you call “common sense” is actually rather crooked…
But by all means, examine it critically, and if after a critical analysis of the full data you reach a conclusion that contradicts what the results of the trials conducted so far show and what the FDA’s best reviewers have decided, then don’t get vaccinated (just stay home so as not to infect others).

Okay.
So we agreed that in a field of expertise there is no room for blind obedience, and there is room to examine things while consulting experts or hearing them out.

So why, until now, have your responses to other views of doctors and scientists who speak differently from the medical establishment been total dismissal, not to say contempt?

There is a respectable group of scientists and doctors organized in a group called the Common Sense Model.

They completely disagree with the dominant conception.

Is it not proper, at the very least, to address their position on its merits?
Could the fact that the site’s dear friend Mr. Feiglin supports their position help?

Until now, unfortunately, I have seen only total dismissal, without any engagement with the substance of their arguments.

Response to Lev:

By the same token, I recommend that you critically examine the real data regarding the “corona epidemic” (a little tip—don’t rely only on television and sites like Ynet).

If you still remain in your position that we are in the midst of a terrible epidemic—you’re welcome to shut yourself up at home (just don’t impose your anxiety on the rest of us).

Alex, I already went ahead and checked thoroughly, including reading articles (not on Ynet, of course. In that you are right—that Ynet is an inferior and poor source), and I also discussed the issue with an expert, one of the leading researchers in the field. And I have news for you: we are in the midst of a global pandemic.
I see that you are one of the conspiracy enthusiasts (maybe you even think that Shimon Peres joined forces with Bill Gates and Jeffrey Epstein and the three of them assassinated John Kennedy), and I have no business with conspiracy enthusiasts.

Dear Lev,

Since you decided to move to the level of responding to the writer rather than the issue itself, I have nothing more to discuss with you.
This tactic is used mainly by those who know their argument is weak—and so your escape is entirely understandable (though worthy of condemnation).
On the substance: such an exhaustive examination as you did (you spoke with one expert…. wow) is indeed conclusive proof of the existence of the pandemic…
Your remarks about my belief in conspiracies do not deserve a response, but they teach a great deal about your shallow and populist way of thinking.
As far as I’m concerned, the discussion with you ends here.

Health and a happy Hanukkah.

It is not clear to me how you concluded from what I wrote that I rely on one expert (it goes without saying that I do not).
But no matter. Apparently you are right and this is not a pandemic at all but fictitious propaganda by aliens who took over the world media in order to promote the international pedophilia network headed by Hillary Clinton and Bill Gates, and sadly Donald Trump, who tried to hold back the tide, failed in this (nothing to do about it. After Osama bin Laden shaved and changed his name to Obama, he managed to bring about fraud in the voting machines).
And if so, then indeed there is no point in discussion.
Happy Hanukkah to you too.

Alex, you are welcome to go to a hospital and see people hospitalized because of coronavirus and all the sick people. After that, deny coronavirus.
The vaccine was tested on forty thousand people, and right now they are injecting it all over the world, so by the time it reaches you we will probably already know whether it is safe or not.

Alex, I apologize for the previous response, which was disrespectful. What can I do? In general I have a tendency to scoff at worldwide conspiracy theories, especially in areas where I have a fairly good understanding.
But there is no benefit in such responses, and I have no interest in insulting.
If you want to believe in an absurd worldwide conspiracy, health to you (and let us just hope it will not harm the health of others).
Bottom line, I agree with you that there is no room for a discussion that is not based on arguments and findings.

With God’s help, 1 Tevet 5781

I will say here a few passing thoughts on the vaccine issue, as “homework” for consultation with an expert.

A. At first glance, the risk in a vaccine is that it gives a person a weakened dose of the virus, and there is some room for concern that specifically through the vaccine a sensitive person may become infected and fall ill. However, in our situation there is anyway a great concern of being infected with the virus even without the vaccine, so what have we gained by not taking the vaccine?

B. What perhaps can be suggested is that before taking the vaccine, the person should be checked to see whether he has antibodies, and if his body has already developed antibodies, there is no point in being vaccinated again unnecessarily. But if the person has not developed antibodies, it is better that he take the vaccine.

That is how it seems to me, in my humble opinion, at first glance; but in practice the best thing is for each person to consult a specialist doctor who knows his medical history.

With blessings, Yaron Fishel Ordner

From what I understand, there are different technologies regarding vaccines. Are you sure the coronavirus vaccine also uses a weakened virus?

Yishai, you are right regarding the Pfizer and Moderna vaccine: it is synthetic and contains no virus.
Of course, that does not mean there is no risk a priori.
The body can also develop an unwanted reaction to foreign substances that are not viruses, and therefore safety testing on tens of thousands of people was necessary.

That is obvious to me.
I meant that the risk that the virus will “wake up” does not exist.

To Yishai,
I find it hard to understand how you concluded that I “deny coronavirus”…
Every year there are masses of people hospitalized from winter viruses—there is nothing unusual this year.

Good luck with the vaccine experiment—if the authorities ordered it, we do it without questioning.

And a question for those who understand:

I just saw a report on Channel 7 saying that the effectiveness of the Moderna vaccine is 94.1%, and that it prevents infection by 66%—so I do not understand: 66% or 94.1%?

With blessings,, Yaron Pish”l Ordner

Alex, every year more than a million and a half people die from one virus?

Yishai,
Honestly, I’m pretty tired of repeating myself like a parrot, but I’ll make one last effort for you:

1. How do you know that a million and a half died? Did you personally know them, or did they say it on the news?

2. According to your approach—what does it mean that they died from the virus? Do you mean that the virus was the cause of death, or that they died of another cause and beforehand were found to be carriers of the virus? (Hint—check the Ministry of Health’s reporting policy.)

3. Are you sure the existing tests are reliable? Go and investigate a little for what purpose the PCR test was invented and what is being said today about the reliability of the tests.

I gave you some food for thought and research in a nutshell—I’m done with this thread.

1. True. I really did not go and check a million and a half people to see whether they died or not.
2. What is the policy of the whole world?
3. I’m looking forward to your enlightening me about why the tests are unreliable.

To Yaron’s question: the 94% rate was measured according to the (non-)appearance of clear symptomatic disease. It does not represent the rate of protection from infection by the virus (not that I know where Channel 7 got the data it presented. One needs to check the original source itself and not rely on them blindly).