Forum Replies Created
This is not comparable to the flu.
There is ZERO population immunity to the coronavirus.
This is why the coronavirus is:
⬤ far more contagious (far more cases)
⬤ far more severe (5% need hospitalization)
It is silly and outright dangerous to look at the numbers “so far”. Flu cases rise for five months until the flu season peaks.
The new coronavirus is:
⬤ far more contagious than the flu
⬤ far more deadly than the flu
⬤ can overload ICU and emergency rooms limiting treatment optionsMarch 11, 2020 8:37 pm at 8:37 pm in reply to: Chareidi community highly suceptible to coronavirus #1839223
This is NOT the flu because of:
⬤ ZERO population immunity
⬤ 1-0.5% case-fatality (>10-20 times higher than average flu)
⬤ Basic reproduction number = 2.2-4
(this means that, on average, an infected person will infect 2.2 to 4 other people. For average influenza epidemic the number is about 1.3)
⬤ Potential to overload ICUs and ERs, further increasing case-fatality
There are ZERO deaths in China for 0-9 years olds. However, children can pass the virus on to adults.
We must go to the extreme to protect older people. And not getting infected yourself protects them.
700 people got infected on the Diamond Princess cruise. So far 4 people died – all aged in the 80s.
Elderly should avoid visitors and limit contact. Those with diabetes/heart disease appear more susceptible.
UK Ministry of Health website:
“So far, there is no evidence that vaping causes harm to other people around you. The available evidence indicates that any risk of harm is extremely low, especially when compared with secondhand tobacco smoke.”
Nicotine doesn’t cause cancer!
To quote the American Cancer Society:
“It is the smoke from combustible tobacco products — not nicotine — that injures and kills millions of smokers.”
Of course vaping nicotine, glycerin and some flavors is far safer than smoking tar, carbon monoxide and 7,000+ chemicals from tobacco smoke.
Neville wrote: “You can’t just claim that every posek who doesn’t jive with you shittah didn’t properly learn the sugya.”
>I don’t claim every posek who doesn’t hold of techeiles didn’t properly learn the sugya, but of those who did many or most support techeiles,
Neville wrote: “You’re actually outright claiming to be smarter that Rav Eliyashiv on this topic.”
Many lesser poskim have some technical knowledge on Techeiles which Rav Elyashiv didn’t profess to have. Rav Elyashiv’s Teshuva doesn’t conclude that techeilies today is impossible, only that the evidence presented in the question is insufficient.
Neville, again this is not a sugya that was addressed head-on by the Gedolei Haposkim. The crux of Rav Elyashiv’s teshuva relates to the general question of נאמנות החוקרים, not the powerful evidence raised by talmidei chachamim today.
Importantly, Rav Elyashiv never rules out this is Techeiles. On נגנז he cites ישועות מלכו, who himself doesn’t consider his interpretation of נגנז conclusive (Chacham’s comment above and ישועות מלבו סי’ ג).
Rav Gershon Meltzer, when discussing Techeiles in his sefer Living Halacha on Hilchos Tzitzis, cites Rav Moshe Halbershtam who says someone who didn’t go through a Sugya doesn’t have a din of חכם שהורה.
NO major American Kashrus organization follows Rav Elyashiv’s psak regarding worms in the fish, mainly because they contend that the metziyus was not presented to Rav Elyashiv properly.
Techeiles requires far more detailed technical knowledge than the question of anisakis in fish.
When taking about “most poskim”, it’s important to the refer to most poskim who went through the Sugya.
On Rav Elyashiv’s Teshuva…
Rav Elyashiv’s Teshuva is NOT in relation to EVIDENCE for murex. The question posed is:
(1) חוקרים claim this is the Chilazon and (2) there’s nothing to lose — therefore should we wear this dye?
No evidence for or against murex is presented!
Indeed, the response relates to the question of נאמנות החוקרים where past theories were refuted (and some other צרופים).
It’s very well known Rav Elyashiv spent his time on Shas and Poskim and was generally not the kind of posek who researched the technical aspects the Shailos — that is something Poskim the like Rav Belsky do. Instead, Rav Elyashiv’s approach was to respond precisely to the question how it was asked.
The cogent evidence for the murex, especially as has been developed lately, is a highly technical question never posed to Rav Elyashiv.
Regarding Rav Chaim Kanievski, in a lengthier Teshuva in a footnote in Da’as Noteh, he states that his position is based on his Rabeim who didn’t wear this Techeiles. Presumably he is referring to those who lived after the murex was a question, ie Rav Elyashiv.
IMHO this is a very, very technical shaila, and people should be relying on the likes of Rav Belsky.