Q&A: Dan Schueftan on Those Who Aren’t Willing to Get Vaccinated for COVID
Dan Schueftan on Those Who Aren’t Willing to Get Vaccinated for COVID
Question
Hello Rabbi,
I’m interested in what you think about Dan Schueftan’s statements this week:
https://www.israelhayom.co.il/opinions/article/5573331/
You can also answer on a scale from “a lunatic not worthy of a response” to “he read my mind exactly”..
Answer
He went too far. He is proposing to use the Green Pass as a tool of punishment. That is excessive. I am entirely in favor of limiting their ability to infect us, but only out of considerations of self-protection and not out of considerations of punishment. I already wrote that I am also in favor of giving them lower priority in medical treatment, and perhaps also requiring them to share in funding their treatment if they contracted COVID.
Discussion on Answer
Persecuting the unvaccinated is completely unnecessary, since vaccination does not prevent infection or transmission. The benefit of vaccination is for the person who gets infected, by reducing the risk of severe illness, so someone who does not get vaccinated is endangering himself and not the vaccinated.
The way to increase the number of vaccinated people is through explanation and persuasion. Explanation that does not blur the risks of the vaccine, but rather clarifies that the risks of COVID are more severe and more common than the risks of the vaccine, and therefore it is in a person’s own interest to get vaccinated. One-sided propaganda accompanied by threats and persecution only harms the acceptance of the message.
Best regards, Hanoch Henich Palti-Feinshmaker
“I am entirely in favor of limiting their ability to infect us, but only out of considerations of self-protection and not out of considerations of punishment”
What do you think about gathering them into ghettos? That way we will remain more protected.
And what do you think about this: in exchange for the medical treatment we give them, and because they endanger us, they will work for us in special labor camps that we build for them?
Would you like to head the Stay Safe organization that we will establish in order to raise awareness regarding those contaminating and life-endangering human beings?
A huge Cornell study showed what has recently been clear from the British data: Pfizer vaccines do indeed lower the chances of infection and symptomatic illness for about 3.5 months, but after that their effectiveness drops below zero—that is, it becomes negative. In other words, don’t read it as “vaccine” but as “weakening.” Apparently this is a combination of a non-neutralizing vaccine, waning antibodies, and a super-evasive virus that produces more contagious vaccine-escaping variants דווקא because of the mass vaccination—as experts predicted and warned about about a year ago.
Meaning, if there is any logic to a black passport, it is to protect the unvaccinated.
But the believers in the lie make a mistake when they do not allow the recovered (many of whom do not wish to participate in the mechanism for ethical reasons)—the only ones who really “protect” them—to move freely near them.
Please get acquainted with Dr. Rafaelzioni, who did postdoctoral fellowships at Stanford and at the University of Washington in virology and dangerous viruses. He worked as an external consultant to the Bill Gates Foundation on vaccination programs, is an internal medicine expert, and a senior physician in the emergency room at Laniado:
https://twitter.com/rzioni/status/1446803118897913856
https://twitter.com/rzioni/status/1459534319517679622
It seems to me that in the end, every restriction he mentioned there can be explained as a means of self-protection.
And that is exactly what seems very problematic to me, and I’m asking whether there is a rational boundary (and not a hypochondriac one like in that article, in my opinion) for where defensive measures end. Is there such a thing?
In any case, there is also a response post by Machatz to his article. Worth it, in my opinion: