Another long piece from R' Twersky shlit"a that can be summed up in one sentence: since there is much we don't know about the virus, we have to error on the side of caution and avoid having minyanim.
This type of thinking flies in the face of our common life experience. More often than not in life we made decisions -- often very consequential decisions -- having incomplete knowledge and facing uncertainty. Does R' Twersky think the medical profession is any different? Does he think that at some point doctors know *all* there is about a disease? And if knowing *enough* is in fact good enough, then who says how much that *enough* has to be? Ikar chaseir min ha'sefer. There is no attempt made to specify what information we still lack, what benchmark needs to be met, what data will create a confidence level that can allow shuls to open. (And what about people working essential jobs -- should they quit because due to uncertainty there is a safeik sakana and by going to work they violate the lav of u'shmartem es nafshoseichem?) All that one can say for certain after reading this piece is that the NY State Board of Heath does not set the standard for us, as they already feel they have *enough* knowledge of the disease to say that 10 people gathering to worship poses a minimal risk. Who does set the standard for us to follow and based on what criteria is never defined.
Without answers to these critical questions -- without people being willing to ask these questions -- this is a recipe for continued and perpetual lockdown.