Features
I’m a veteran expert in stopping epidemics. Here’s why Jewish institutions should cancel everything.
By GARY SLUTKIN
CHICAGO (JTA) — I am an infectious disease epidemiologist who worked at the World Health Organization on epidemics in over 25 countries around the world.
As a physician and member of the Jewish community, I prize the Jewish teaching that places the saving of a life above all other laws and practices. It is my expert opinion that as a result of the emergence of the novel coronavirus COVID-19, the Jewish community (along with all religious and community groups) must change what we are doing immediately: We need to suspend our usual religious services and social gatherings.
Many communities have recognized the emergency and already made this change, and more and more are doing so in the hours before Shabbat begins. But others are still making small-scale changes or contemplating what to do next.
Each community and individual will have to work within their own traditions and norms. But as an epidemiologist, I know that these recommendations will save lives.
I have worked to help stop epidemics of many sizes and infectious patterns — from AIDS in Africa and Asia, to tuberculosis in San Francisco, to cholera in Somalia. I also ran the Intervention Unit for WHO, which guided countries in epidemic control and the behavioral changes needed.
All serious epidemics disrupt populations, and all require important changes to what the population does. These changes are necessary and urgent to avoid preventable deaths and the spread of infections that cause more preventable deaths. That’s why I recommend that we as Jews temporarily but immediately refrain from attending synagogues and other in-person meetings, no matter whether we live in an area where there is a known case of COVID-19 or not.
This virus is easily transmitted through droplets in the air, through hand to hand (to face) contact and on surfaces, and is much more dangerous than the seasonal flu. The seriousness and lethality of this virus to older people is exceptionally high, and other adults also have higher risks of serious illness as well as high likelihoods of causing transmission to older people.
First and foremost, we must take these steps because we value human life: our own lives, our families, and the greater community and the world around us. Stopping group contact is an essential method right now for preventing ourselves from getting this easily transmitted and highly lethal virus, and also to stop any spread to our families and the community.
Mistakes and delays and less than perfect compliance with new behaviors and practices can be deadly. We have seen this happen already in other countries, like Italy and elsewhere in Europe, and we are witnessing the active spread in Seattle and New York state. Other cities and parts of cities will see lethal outbreaks if they are late or noncompliant.
Complacency, denial and overconfidence are common among us, but there is no place for this now.
You may get pushback from your family or friends, and you may feel social pressure to go about business as usual. But this is not a time to care about that — now is the time to do as much as we can to prevent the spread of disease and death. Resist these impulses and counter arguments.
This pandemic will go on for at least several months – we still don’t know how long. As we learn more, we will be better able to make more localized and informed decisions about when and how to adjust or attempt to get back to normal, but now is the time to stop any possible potential for getting infected yourself and causing illness, perhaps serious illness to yourself — or for unknowingly infecting others, which you cannot judge by appearances of health right now.
Major global and local crises require these adjustments but also challenge us to increase our humanity and the best parts of our communal lives.
Synagogues and our religious communities present both significant challenges and value in that regard. However, we must now learn to balance our spiritual and emotional health with the real physical risks to our health today.
Therefore, unfortunately:
We must suspend our usual religious services and gatherings now.
Crowds and close contact risk invisible spread and disease to you and others, and you don’t know who might be carrying the virus.
In addition, in our daily lives:
Cancel and don’t attend other non-essential in-person meetings.
Learning can be done on conference calls, including video services like Zoom, Skype and Google Hangouts. The same goes for meetings. It may sound harsh, but remember, the risk to what we schedule isn’t simply inside the synagogue walls. It also takes place for the participants on transportation, street encounters, etc.
We must stop (“ban”) all handshaking, as well as hugs and embraces.
Even the “fist bump” and “elbow rub” puts two individuals in closer proximity than is optimal and I recommend we stop this entirely.
That doesn’t mean we can’t greet one another with respect and warmth. The heart, “lev” in Hebrew, has been taught in Jewish and other traditions to be the seat of spirituality. Consider alternatively placing your hand to your heart and bowing your head in acknowledgement of an encounter with a fellow community member. It may feel awkward at first, but can help to maintain critical social distance while honoring the encounter. It might even feel good.
Practice frequent and thorough handwashing.
I cannot overemphasize frequent and thorough handwashing throughout the day. An incredibly frequent means of spread of respiratory pathogens is a sick person touching their face, shaking hands with another person and that person then touching their face. We touch our face dozens of times a day, mostly unconsciously. This practice with an unwashed hand is enough to cause the infection through your eye, nose or mouth touched. Develop a different relationship to your hands, be aware if you have touched a door knob, railing or other surface someone may have touched. These surfaces also harbor the virus if they have been touched by someone sick or incubating the infection.
Keep social distances.
It is best to be further away from people than we usually are. This may seem weird or unusual, but it means in the grocery store, or wherever you go, try to be 6 feet or more away from others.
If you are sick with a fever or cough, stay home.
Call your doctor to determine if you really need to go in. Some medical facilities are getting full or risk being so, not everything is coronavirus and there are no treatments for now. If you are having shortness of breath or feel seriously ill, of course seek care as usual.
For those who are holding small services at home:
Don’t kiss communally shared objects.
Prayer books, mezuzot and the like should not be kissed for the duration. Even touching communal objects or surfaces should be avoided, unless you can assure handwashing immediately after.
Stop sharing challah and kiddush cups — and consider how and if you need to serve food.
It is very hard to ensure not spreading respiratory viruses by serving and sharing food.
Focus on the Jewish tradition of acts of lovingkindness.
While this is not an infection control recommendation, it’s an important Jewish value. Do you have a friend or family member or neighbor at high risk for whom you can run an errand? Many people are at home now working, in self-quarantine or just trying to stay safe. Check in on them safely. Pick up the phone and see how they are doing. See if they need an errand run for them without potentially passing on an invisible infection.
The isolation that can help protect our physical health should not erode our mental health. This important part of Jewish life can be adapted — perhaps not so easily, but we will figure out ways to do this with care and understanding.
While this is a moment for in-person synagogue activities to pause, this is an ever more critical moment for the role synagogue can play in the lives of people who are isolated, fearful or just in need of comfort. Nearly everyone is in some level of emotional and mental distress over what is happening.
There are brain processes we have as invisible to the eye, yet as powerful as microbial processes and just as crucial. Even in good times, our synagogues and religious communities represent crucial elements in our own sense of well-being and social safety net. This is all the more true during a frightening global crisis.
While nothing can fully replace human contact, our phones and computers offer a great means to connect in full safety. This is the moment for rabbis and synagogue leadership to be most mindful of preserving human life by using all technology tools — including the phone, of course — to make our communities virtual but still alive until this pandemic is under control. Which we are all now helping to ensure.
After decades of working to stop epidemics, I saw many very tough situations and many hard days, weeks and months. Epidemics follow a curve up and then back down, and eventually they end. It is up to us and our most important and trusted institutions to stop the spread now — and to keep the curve of infections and deaths as small and short as possible.
Better days are ahead. Our synagogues will again ring with beautiful voices and much joy. We will get there with these strong and proactive steps to ensure as many beautiful voices as possible are there to join us.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of JTA or its parent company, 70 Faces Media.
Features
Are Niche and Unconventional Relationships Monopolizing the Dating World?
The question assumes a battle being waged and lost. It assumes that something fringe has crept into the center and pushed everything else aside. But the dating world has never operated as a single system with uniform rules. People have always sorted themselves according to preference, circumstance, and opportunity. What has changed is the visibility of that sorting and the tools available to execute it.
Online dating generated $10.28 billion globally in 2024. By 2033, projections put that figure at $19.33 billion. A market of that size does not serve one type of person or one type of relationship. It serves demand, and demand has always been fragmented. The apps and platforms we see now simply make that fragmentation visible in ways that provoke commentary.
Relationship Preferences
Niche dating platforms now account for nearly 30 percent of the online dating market, and projections suggest they could hold 42 percent of market share by 2028. This growth reflects how people are sorting themselves into categories that fit their actual lives.
Some want a sugar relationship, others seek partners within specific religious or cultural groups, and still others look for connections based on hobbies or lifestyle choices. The old model of casting a wide net has given way to something more targeted.
A YouGov poll found 55 percent of Americans prefer complete monogamy, while 34 percent describe their ideal relationship as something other than monogamous. About 21 percent of unmarried Americans have tried consensual non-monogamy at some point. These numbers do not suggest a takeover. They suggest a population with varied preferences now has platforms that accommodate those preferences openly rather than forcing everyone into the same structure.
The Numbers Tell a Different Story
Polyamory and consensual non-monogamy receive substantial attention in media coverage and on social platforms. The actual practice rate sits between 4% and 5% of the American population. That figure has remained relatively stable even as public awareness has increased. Being aware of something and participating in it are separate behaviors.
A 2020 YouGov poll reported that 43% of millennials describe their ideal relationship as non-monogamous. Ideals and actions do not always align. People answer surveys about what sounds appealing in theory. They then make decisions based on their specific circumstances, available partners, and emotional capacity. The gap between stated preference and lived reality is substantial.
Where Young People Are Looking
Gen Z accounts for more than 50% of Hinge users. According to a 2025 survey by The Knot, over 50% of engaged couples met through dating apps. These platforms have become primary infrastructure for forming relationships. They are not replacing traditional dating; they are the context in which traditional dating now occurs.
Younger users encounter more relationship styles on these platforms because the platforms allow for it. Someone seeking a conventional monogamous partnership will still find that option readily available. The presence of other options does not eliminate this possibility. It adds to the menu.
Monopoly Implies Exclusion
The framing of the original question suggests that niche relationships might be crowding out mainstream ones. Monopoly means one entity controls a market to the exclusion of competitors. Nothing in the current data supports that characterization.
Mainstream dating apps serve millions of users seeking conventional relationships. These apps have added features to accommodate other preferences, but their core user base remains people looking for monogamous partnerships. The addition of new categories does not subtract from existing ones. Someone filtering for a specific religion or hobby does not prevent another person from using the same platform without those filters.
What Actually Changed
Two things happened. First, apps built segmentation into their business models because segmentation increases user satisfaction. People find what they want faster when they can specify their preferences. Second, social acceptance expanded for certain relationship types that previously operated in private or faced stigma.
Neither of these developments amounts to a monopoly. They amount to market differentiation and cultural acknowledgment. A person seeking a sugar arrangement and a person seeking marriage can both use apps built for their respective purposes. They are not competing for the same resources.
The Perception Problem
Media coverage tends toward novelty. A story about millions of people using apps to find conventional relationships does not generate engagement. A story about unconventional relationship types generates clicks, comments, and shares. This creates a perception gap between how often something is discussed and how often it actually occurs.
The 4% to 5% practicing polyamory receive disproportionate coverage relative to the 55% who prefer complete monogamy. The coverage is not wrong, but it creates an impression of prevalence that exceeds reality.
Where This Leaves Us
Niche relationships are not monopolizing dating. They are becoming more visible and more accommodated by platforms that benefit from serving specific needs. The majority of people seeking relationships still want conventional arrangements, and they still find them through the same channels.
The dating world is larger than it was before. It contains more explicit options. It allows people to state preferences that once required inference or luck. None of this constitutes a takeover. It constitutes an expansion. The space for one type of relationship did not shrink to make room for another. The total space grew.
Features
Matthew Lazar doing his part to help keep Israelis safe in a time of war
By MYRON LOVE It is well known – or at least it should be – that while Israel puts a high value of protecting the lives of its citizens, the Jewish state’s Islamic enemies celebrate death. The single most glaring difference between the opposing sides can be seen in the differing approach to building bomb shelters to protect their populations.
Whereas Hamas and Hezbollah have invested untold billions of dollars over the past 20 years in building underground tunnels to protect their fighters while leaving their “civilian” populations exposed to Israeli bombs, not only has Israel built a highly sophisticated anti-missile system but also the leadership has invested heavily in making sure that most Israelis have access to bomb shelters – wherever they are – in war time.
While Israel’s bomb shelter program is comprehensive, there are still gaps – gaps which Dr. Matthew Lazar is doing his bit to help reduce.
The Winnipeg born-and raised pediatrician -who is most likely best known to readers as a former mohel – is the president of Project Life Initiatives – the Canadian branch of Israel-based Operation Lifeshield whose mission is to provide bomb shelters for threatened Israeli communities.
Lazar actually got in on the ground floor – so to speak. It was a cousin of his, Rabbi Shmuel Bowman, Operation Lifeshield’s executive director, who – in 2006 – founded the organization.
“Shmuel was one of a small group of American olim and Israelis who were visiting the Galilee during the second Lebanon war in 2006 and found themselves under rocket attack – along with thousands of others – with no place to go,” recounts Lazar, who has two daughters living in Israel. “They decided to take action. I was one of the people Shmuel approached to become an Operation Lifeshield volunteer.
Since the founding of Lifeshield, Lazar reports, over 1,000 shelters have been deployed in Israel. The number of new shelter orders since October 7, 2023 is 149.
He further notes that while the largest share of Operation Lifeshield’s funding comes from American donors, there has been good support for the organization across Canada as well.
One of the major donors in Winnipeg is the Christian Zionist organization, Christian Friends of Israel (FOI) Canada which, in September, as part of its second annual “Stand With Israel Support” evening – presented Lazar and Operation Lifeshield with a cheque for $30,000 toward construction of a bomb shelter for the Yasmin kindergarten in the Binyamina Regional Council in Northern Israel.
Lazar reports that to date the total number of shelters donated by Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry (globally) is over 100.
Lazar notes that the head office for Project Life Initiatives is – not surprisingly – in Toronto. “We communicate by telephone, text and Zoom,” he says.
He observes that – as he is still a full time pediatrician – he isn’t able to visit Israel nearly as often as he would like to. He manages to go every couple of years and always makes a point of visiting some of Operation Lifeshield’s projects.
(He adds that his wife, Nola, gets to Israel two or three times a year – not only to visit family, but also in her role as president of Mercaz Canada – the Canadian Conservative movement’s Zionist arm.)
“This is something I have been able to do to help safeguard Israelis,” Lazar says of his work for Operation Lifeshield. “This is a wonderful thing we are doing. I am glad to be of help. ”
Features
Patterns of Erasure: Genocide in Nazi Europe and Canada
By LIRON FYNE When we think of the word genocide, our minds often jump to the Holocaust, the mass-scale, systemic government-led murder of six million Jews by Nazi Germany during the Second World War, whose unprecedented scale and methods led to the very term ‘genocide’ being coined. On January 27th, 2026, we will bow our heads for International Holocaust Remembrance Day, the 80th year of remembrance.
Less frequently do we connect genocidal intent to the campaign against Indigenous peoples in Canada; the forced displacement, cultural destruction, and systematic killing that sought to erase Indigenous peoples. The genocide conducted by the Nazis and the genocidal intent of the Canadian government, though each unique in scale, motive, and implementation, share many conceptual similarities. Both were driven by ideologies of racial superiority, executed through governmental precision, and justified by the perpetrators as a moral mission.
At their core rests the concept of dehumanization. In Nazi Germany, Jews were viewed as subhuman, contaminated, and a threat to the ‘Aryan’ race. In Canada, Indigenous peoples were represented as obstacles to ‘progress’ and seen as hurdles to a Christian, Eurocentric nation. These ideas, this dehumanization, turned human beings into problems to be solved. Adolf Hitler called it the ‘Jewish question,’ leading to an official policy in 1942 called the ‘Final Solution to the Jewish Question,’ whereas Canadian officials called it the ‘Indian problem.’ The language is similar, a belief that one group’s existence endangers the destiny of another. The methods of extermination differed in practice and outcome, but the language of intent resembles one another.
The Holocaust’s concentration camps and carefully engineered gas chambers were designed for efficient, industrial-scale killing, resulting in mass murder. The well-organized plan of systematic degradation, deadly riots, brutal camp conditions, and designated killing centres were only a few of the ways the Nazis worked to eliminate the Jews. The Canadian government’s weapons were policy, assimilation and abandonment. Such as the Indian Act, reserves, and residential schools, which were all meant to ‘kill the Indian in the child,’ cutting generations off from their languages, families, and cultures. Thousands of Indigenous children died in residential schools, buried in unmarked graves near schools that called themselves places of learning. Both systems were backed by either religion or ideology; Nazi ideology brought together racist eugenic policies and virulent antisemitism, while Canada’s genocidal intent was supported by Christian Protestantism claiming to save Indigenous souls by erasing their heritage.
The Holocaust was a six-year campaign of complete industrialized extermination, mass murder with a mechanized intent, on a scale that remains historically unique. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission describes Canada’s indigenous genocide as a cultural one that unfolded over centuries through assimilation and the destruction of indigenous languages and identities. The Holocaust ended with the liberation of the camps and a global recognition of the atrocities committed. However, the generational trauma and dehumanization of antisemitism carry on. For Indigenous peoples in Canada, the effects of the genocidal intent continue to this day, visible in displacement, poverty, and intergenerational trauma. While these histories differ in form and timeline, both are rooted in dehumanization and the belief that some lives are worth less than others.
A disturbing similarity lies in the aftermath: silence and denial. The Holocaust forced the world to confront the atrocity with the vow of ‘Never Again,’ which has now been unearthed and reformed as ‘Never Again is Now,’ after the October 7th, 2023, massacre by Hamas. The largest massacre of Jewish people since the Holocaust, and the denial of the atrocities committed on October 7th, highlight the same Holocaust denial we see rising around the world. In Canada, for decades, the genocidal intent was hidden behind narratives of kindness and social progress. Only in recent years, through survivor testimony for the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and the discovery of unmarked graves, has the truth gained recognition. But acknowledgment without justice risks repeating the same patterns of erasure.
Comparing these atrocities committed is not about comparing pain or scale; it is about understanding the shared systems that enabled them. Both demonstrate how racism, superiority, and dehumanization can be used to justify the destruction of human beings. Remembering is not enough in Canada. True remembrance demands accountability, land restitution, reparations, and education that confronts Canada’s ongoing colonial legacy. When we say ‘Never Again is Now’, we hold collective action to combat antisemitism in all forms. The same applies to Truth & Reconciliation; it must be more than a slogan; we must apply action to Truth & ReconciliACTION.
Liron Fyne is a 12th-grade student at Gray Academy of Jewish Education in Winnipeg. They are currently a Kenneth Leventhal High School Intern at StandWithUs Canada, a non-profit education organization that combats antisemitism.