This is an exerpt from a reference paper's footnote found while searching on TUNVA. The paper is totally unrelated to computers. I think the creater of this virus is trying to say something profound. Too bad the subtlety isn't appreciated by me.
108. TB Yoma 83a. The idea of tunva is discussed by R Yig'al Shafran in an original and fascinating short volume that I acquired only after completing a late draft of this present work, L'khapot o Lachadol? (To Compel or to Refrain? Treatment of Parents Against Their Wishes (Hebrew): Jerusalem 1993: The Division of Medicine and Halakha of the Chief Rabbinate and of the Jerusalem Regional Religious Council.). At pp. 35 ff., R Shafran argues that the Old French term that Rashi uses as a translation of tunva, namely, 'estordison ', is used by Rashi elsewhere in a way that reflects simple confusion, rather than what would otherwise be judged to be true mental incompetence. (See Rashi, s.v. tunva, in TB Nida 37b,
TB 'Eruvin 68a; and s.v. tohu vavohu, Genesis 1.2) Since the diagnosis of tunvav disqualifies a patient's wishes, and since most if not all seriously ill patients suffer confusion, R Shafran argues for the general principle that seriously ill patients can be presumed incapable for purposes of medical decision-making.
There are two issues to be dealt with in responding to this powerful challenge to a patient's role in medical decision-making. First: Why does R Shafran believe that this passage may be generalized beyond the specifics of eating upon Yom Kippur? It may be argued that under these special circumstances, when an ill person has been fasting, his mind may be presumed clouded, but not otherwise.
The second issue is more basic. The Old French term, 'estordison '-- cognate to the modern etourdissement-- had (and retains) a broad semantic range, that includes garden-variety thoughtlessness, heedlessness and foolishness, as well as medically significant stupor or daze. (Cf. Tobler-Lommatzsch, Altfranzosisches Worterbuch (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1954), s.v. estordison.) The other instances of its use that R Shafran cite appear to take the former meaning, that does not imply strict incompetence. But in the instance which we are discussing Rashi adds the specifical qualifier, that this decision is being done incompetently, i.e., as sh'tut . Here then Rashi seems to be taking pains to tell us that tunva only amounts to incompetence when accompanied by sh'tut. (I am very grateful to McGill University's Prof. Faith Wallis, of the Department of Social Studies in Medicine, for information about the French.)