Q&A: A Coronavirus Patient in a Public Safe Room During a Missile Attack
A Coronavirus Patient in a Public Safe Room During a Missile Attack
Question
Good week.
An institution in Ashdod includes dormitory rooms in caravans, and when there is a siren everyone enters the public shelter.
One person has been infected with coronavirus and is supposed to be in isolation.
In the event of a siren, should he enter the public shelter or remain in his room? From the standpoint of Jewish law, morality, and law.
The question is both his own question—how he should act—and also a question for the public: may they prevent him from entering?
Is there a difference between a case where the person has a property right in the shelter (such as jointly owned property in a residential building) and a case where the property belongs to the state?
And is there a difference between a case where the person has been diagnosed as ill and a case where he is only required to be in isolation out of concern (for example, because he arrived from abroad)?
Answer
This is not a simple question. First, one should know that there is no real danger from missiles. The chance that a missile will hit the place where you are is very small. The obligation to enter shelters is mainly because we are dealing with a public, and one out of the whole group will be harmed with fairly high probability. But the danger to any particular individual is very small. Therefore, in principle, if there is a problem with entering the shelter, there is certainly room not to enter.
On the other hand, one can enter the shelter and be careful with masks and distancing. So I am inclined to think that if it is possible to be careful properly, it is still preferable to enter the shelter. If it is small and there are many people in it, then in my opinion it is preferable not to enter.
The question of property rights is not relevant. If only you have a property right and others do not, then of course it is your right not to let them enter. I am not saying it is a commandment to do so, only that it is your right. But if everyone has a right, then there is no difference. At most one could say that others do not have the right to prevent you from entering. But if the instructions of the Ministry of Health and Home Front Command in such a situation are not to enter, then the law of the land is binding, and you are still obligated not to enter.
If you have been diagnosed as ill, then the obligation to check whether you can remain protected in the shelter is doubled and redoubled, especially if there are others there who are unvaccinated. Although, if someone did not get vaccinated by his own decision, you certainly are not required to give up anything for him. The danger of infection is his problem. If he does not want to be infected, let him leave the shelter.
Discussion on Answer
1. With coronavirus, the chance of infecting others if you are sick and close to other people is not small at all. What will happen to those who are infected? That depends on their age and medical condition. So here each case depends on its own circumstances. Maybe you are right in a shelter where you know in advance that there are only young people or that everyone is vaccinated. But if we are talking about at-risk people who are unvaccinated, this is certainly a tangible danger. Not to mention that those who are infected can infect others, which is not true of missiles.
2. Beyond that, there is a distinction here—I am undecided whether it is only formal—between a situation where you introduce a risk factor into the body and the only question is whether it will cause harm, where the chance of that is small, and a situation where in general there is only a small chance of being harmed.
3. Finally, if people are afraid differently of the two risks, even if in your opinion they are mistaken, they still have the right for us to take their fears into account and not force our view on them.
You wrote regarding the danger from missiles:
"One should know that there is no real danger from missiles. The chance that a missile will hit the place where you are is very small. The obligation to enter shelters is mainly because we are dealing with a public, and one out of the whole group will be harmed with fairly high probability."
It seems to me that the same applies to coronavirus.
The real danger to the individual person is negligible. The obligation to be careful is because we are dealing with a public, and one out of the whole group will be harmed with fairly high probability—if we are talking about danger of death. Infection can cause other harms too, such as the obligation of isolation and loss of workdays, etc.
So what is the difference between the dangers?