11 ms·

To paraphrase a well known orthodox rabbi in the US who wrote a long letter on the topic where he rules that one should wait where he ends: "we can to wait on r

To paraphrase a well known orthodox rabbi in the US who wrote a long letter on the topic where he rules that one should wait where he ends: "we can to wait on returning to synagogue attendence, but we can't bring back a life".

generalpass 6y ago
Does he comment on motorcycle riding? I know two people who died riding motorcycles. Can't bring them back, either. Maybe motorcycle riding should be banned?
- dvt 6y ago
  I lean libertarian, but there's cases where paternalistic laws make sense. For example, w.r.t. motorcycle riding, helmets are required. COVID-19 is a special case where paternalistic laws (albeit technically these orders aren't laws) seem proportional. A reduction in church capacity doesn't really seem like government overreach in the middle of a pandemic; especially because buildings already have (fire-department imposed) capacity limits.
  - mythrwy 6y ago
    Helmets aren't required in all US states (not sure why people don't wear them anyway, but some people don't).
    - dvt 6y ago
      > which seems strange but I guess ones life is their own business It's not strange at all. America is a federation of states which get to tax you, and get to pass their own laws. Your Mayor and Governor have much more impact in your day-to-day life than the President.
      - mythrwy 6y ago
        Right, sorry, comment edited while you were responding. It just seems to strange to me they wouldn't be required in every state because it's such a severe safety hazard not to wear them.
        dmckeon 6y ago
        Because in the US, states get to make some rules, and the federal government gets to make some other rules, and each is protective of their rights and prerogatives as enumerated in the US constitution, as amended. Look into amendments 9, 10, 13, & 14 for more. When the US federal government has wanted to enforce things like a nation-wide speed limit, or vehicle safety requirements, they have had to threaten to withhold highway funding to get states to go along by passing state-by-state laws. In theory, the same could be done with helmet laws, but enough political energy has not materialized for that to happen. This pattern will have implications for full-self-driving vehicles.
        mythrwy 6y ago
        Yes thanks, I'm aware of how the federal system works. Really in the weeds by now, but it just seems strange to me that each state has not decided, on it's own (as per the structure of our federal and state system of governance), to make helmets mandatory.
- failrate 6y ago
  Motor cycle riding is not particularly contagious. Additionally, safety rules are in place to make Motor cycle riding as safe as possible for the rider and anyone with whom they interact.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- flyingcroissant 6y ago
  It is completely reasonable to take precautions to avoid spreading a virus, just like you should wear a helmet when you ride a motorcycle to protect yourself in the event that you crash.
  - generalpass 6y ago
    > It is completely reasonable to take precautions to avoid spreading a virus, just like you should wear a helmet when you ride a motorcycle to protect yourself in the event that you crash. They were both wearing helmets.
    - flyingcroissant 6y ago
      I did not say that wearing a helmet guaranteed that no motorcycle rider would ever be injured.
- jrockway 6y ago
  I think the risk of motorcycle riding is mostly borne by the rider. If you think the reward outweighs the risk, you are welcome to ride. If you think it's too risky, you can decide to not ride. You have a great deal of control over your destiny. (There are many other risks, including risks to others, but we're ignoring those for this comment.) The calculus of a pandemic is different. Your choices affect others, potentially exponentially. You can decide you're in a low risk group, and so you don't care if you get infected. So you do get infected, and like your risk analysis determined, are fine. But you also infected 3 more people thinking the same thing. They each infect more people. One of those people several "generations" away from you then receives an emergency phone call from the nursing home, and rush to go see grandma. They infect several people in the nursing home, and now people that didn't want to take the risk of getting COVID-19 so you could do something you wanted to get COVID-19 and die. When dealing with exponential growth, your small choices can explode into large consequences. People don't do well with cause and effect that they are strongly removed from, and that's what we're seeing with calls to reopen. The negative effects of their behavior will never affect them, so their thought is to ignore it. People in charge of public health have to balance these externalities, and that's what they're trying to do. I am not saying that they made the right decision, but it still seems prudent to me to avoid unnecessary activities if it means you may save someone else's life. We did achieve some important goals in the 3 months that we've been shut down so far. We have better tests. We have better contact tracing. We have more PPE. We have taught people to socially distance. So we are certainly making progress towards being able to live more freely without increasing the risk to the most vulnerable. But we are not in the clear yet.
- tehwebguy 6y ago
  I thought this was the motorcycles-only synagogue too but turns out it’s just a regular one.
- root_axis 6y ago
  Riding a motorcycle is not at all similar to the spread of a highly contagious virus. Further, the style of argument where one sarcastically suggests banning a completely unrelated source of death with respect to a different topic is not conducive to productive discourse.
Ididntdothis 6y ago
It would be nice if churches were a moderating voice but they often do the opposite.
- 082349872349872 6y ago
  From what I saw of Italy, the Pope was perfectly cool with waiting to congregate.
- dang 6y ago
  Please don't step into religious flamewar on HN. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
js2 6y ago
Judaism is fundamentally a religion of laws, but virtually any of those laws may be broken in order to save a life. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pikuach_nefesh https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pikuach_nefesh
- einpoklum 6y ago
  Not "virtually any". Most can, some can't. The link lists several exceptions; of particular note is various forms of disrespecting Jehova.
jeffdavis 6y ago
I think the order was reasonable but let's remember that something lies between being forced to do something and being forced not to do something. What lies between is freedom, and it's a much larger space than the two extremes combined. The Rabbi might use his freedom to leave his synagogue open, close it until we defeat coronavirus, or close it until defeat all transmissible contagious disease.

generalpass 6y ago

Does he comment on motorcycle riding? I know two people who died riding motorcycles. Can't bring them back, either. Maybe motorcycle riding should be banned?

dvt 6y ago
I lean libertarian, but there's cases where paternalistic laws make sense. For example, w.r.t. motorcycle riding, helmets are required. COVID-19 is a special case where paternalistic laws (albeit technically these orders aren't laws) seem proportional. A reduction in church capacity doesn't really seem like government overreach in the middle of a pandemic; especially because buildings already have (fire-department imposed) capacity limits.
- mythrwy 6y ago
  Helmets aren't required in all US states (not sure why people don't wear them anyway, but some people don't).
  - dvt 6y ago
    > which seems strange but I guess ones life is their own business It's not strange at all. America is a federation of states which get to tax you, and get to pass their own laws. Your Mayor and Governor have much more impact in your day-to-day life than the President.
    - mythrwy 6y ago
      Right, sorry, comment edited while you were responding. It just seems to strange to me they wouldn't be required in every state because it's such a severe safety hazard not to wear them.
      - dmckeon 6y ago
        Because in the US, states get to make some rules, and the federal government gets to make some other rules, and each is protective of their rights and prerogatives as enumerated in the US constitution, as amended. Look into amendments 9, 10, 13, & 14 for more. When the US federal government has wanted to enforce things like a nation-wide speed limit, or vehicle safety requirements, they have had to threaten to withhold highway funding to get states to go along by passing state-by-state laws. In theory, the same could be done with helmet laws, but enough political energy has not materialized for that to happen. This pattern will have implications for full-self-driving vehicles.
        mythrwy 6y ago
        Yes thanks, I'm aware of how the federal system works. Really in the weeds by now, but it just seems strange to me that each state has not decided, on it's own (as per the structure of our federal and state system of governance), to make helmets mandatory.
failrate 6y ago
Motor cycle riding is not particularly contagious. Additionally, safety rules are in place to make Motor cycle riding as safe as possible for the rider and anyone with whom they interact.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
flyingcroissant 6y ago
It is completely reasonable to take precautions to avoid spreading a virus, just like you should wear a helmet when you ride a motorcycle to protect yourself in the event that you crash.
- generalpass 6y ago
  > It is completely reasonable to take precautions to avoid spreading a virus, just like you should wear a helmet when you ride a motorcycle to protect yourself in the event that you crash. They were both wearing helmets.
  - flyingcroissant 6y ago
    I did not say that wearing a helmet guaranteed that no motorcycle rider would ever be injured.
jrockway 6y ago
I think the risk of motorcycle riding is mostly borne by the rider. If you think the reward outweighs the risk, you are welcome to ride. If you think it's too risky, you can decide to not ride. You have a great deal of control over your destiny. (There are many other risks, including risks to others, but we're ignoring those for this comment.) The calculus of a pandemic is different. Your choices affect others, potentially exponentially. You can decide you're in a low risk group, and so you don't care if you get infected. So you do get infected, and like your risk analysis determined, are fine. But you also infected 3 more people thinking the same thing. They each infect more people. One of those people several "generations" away from you then receives an emergency phone call from the nursing home, and rush to go see grandma. They infect several people in the nursing home, and now people that didn't want to take the risk of getting COVID-19 so you could do something you wanted to get COVID-19 and die. When dealing with exponential growth, your small choices can explode into large consequences. People don't do well with cause and effect that they are strongly removed from, and that's what we're seeing with calls to reopen. The negative effects of their behavior will never affect them, so their thought is to ignore it. People in charge of public health have to balance these externalities, and that's what they're trying to do. I am not saying that they made the right decision, but it still seems prudent to me to avoid unnecessary activities if it means you may save someone else's life. We did achieve some important goals in the 3 months that we've been shut down so far. We have better tests. We have better contact tracing. We have more PPE. We have taught people to socially distance. So we are certainly making progress towards being able to live more freely without increasing the risk to the most vulnerable. But we are not in the clear yet.
tehwebguy 6y ago
I thought this was the motorcycles-only synagogue too but turns out it’s just a regular one.
root_axis 6y ago
Riding a motorcycle is not at all similar to the spread of a highly contagious virus. Further, the style of argument where one sarcastically suggests banning a completely unrelated source of death with respect to a different topic is not conducive to productive discourse.

Ididntdothis 6y ago

It would be nice if churches were a moderating voice but they often do the opposite.

082349872349872 6y ago
From what I saw of Italy, the Pope was perfectly cool with waiting to congregate.
dang 6y ago
Please don't step into religious flamewar on HN. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

js2 6y ago

Judaism is fundamentally a religion of laws, but virtually any of those laws may be broken in order to save a life. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pikuach_nefesh https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pikuach_nefesh

einpoklum 6y ago
Not "virtually any". Most can, some can't. The link lists several exceptions; of particular note is various forms of disrespecting Jehova.

jeffdavis 6y ago

I think the order was reasonable but let's remember that something lies between being forced to do something and being forced not to do something. What lies between is freedom, and it's a much larger space than the two extremes combined. The Rabbi might use his freedom to leave his synagogue open, close it until we defeat coronavirus, or close it until defeat all transmissible contagious disease.