This is Dr Fauci suggesting that vaccine mandates be called vaccine “requirements” – an even more chilling lexis. Since it paves the way for the state to issue any “requirements” it wants. That is; a “mandate” is something which is “mandatory” – you have to do it because the law says you have to even if you don’t especially want to. That at least is clear. Whereas “requirements” is much more sly – it hides the fact that the government is ordering you to do it. As Foucault pointed out power likes to disguise itself.

I really posted a link to this clip however because of Fauci’s interesting use of the word “outbreak” to describe the pandemic. Linguistically “outbreak” means “break out” – the same semantic groove. Now where exactly did it break out from Dr Fauci?

Also notice how Fauci really believes that everyone needs to be vaccinated. Since the vaccines start wearing off after about three months [1] especially in terms of controlling transmission [2] and since you need (it seems) at least three shots to be even reasonably protected against the current and latest variant then what is he actually proposing is a world in which everyone is vaccinated every three months. Theoretically that is possible but it seems unlikely (barring a large socialist initiative by wealthy nations to organise this in the developing world).

The much more realistic scenario is that the people who should take vaccines are those who are at risk. That is people over 70 and those with existing health conditions. For the others, for whom Covid is not more dangerous than flu in terms of mortality, [3] natural immunity may be a more rational choice. Fauci is not the only Public Health official who is still operating to an unrealistic schema of total vaccination.

Update: after writing the above I came across this in the Independent:

Robert Dingwall, professor of social sciences at Nottingham Trent University, said, however, said that regular boosters may not be the best route forward. “I have heard respected immunologists say privately that it may be better in the long-term to be exposed to infection as an infant and develop a lasting immune response, which is topped up by periodic mild reinfections,” he explained.

Yes. I think, realistically, this is the way forward. What I find interesting about this is that the “respected immunologists” can only allow their view to be known anonymously via a friend. (Maybe they didn’t even intend that much). Why are they afraid of expressing a professional opinion which is counter to the current line from the Health Bureaucracy? Presumably they are afraid of being shot down – (by the media as much as by the Health Bureaucracy) – and the negative affect on their careers. This is certainly a sign that “free speech” does not exist in the UK.

One caveat. Unfortunately, it seems that natural immunity may be strain-specific at least for Omicron; preliminary data suggests that Omicron is highly infectious for those who have already been infected with other versions. Three or four doses of an RNA vaccine may be better. But I don’t think that fundamentally alters the logic here. Unless we accept a regime of a vaccine every three months (and for the vulnerable that may well be the best idea) we are, basically, going to have to get used to this.


  1. https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/how-long-will-coronavirus-vaccine-last
  2. https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2021/10/13/do-coronavirus-vaccines-prevent-transmission-of-the-virus
  3. https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m3883/rr

Author: justinwyllie

EFL Teacher and Photographer