5 ms·

Every other virus that comes from a place gets named after it. Well, that's clearly not true. Swine Flu, H1N1 Pandemic, Ebola epidemic, SARS... the exception i

Every other virus that comes from a place gets named after it. Well, that's clearly not true. Swine Flu, H1N1 Pandemic, Ebola epidemic, SARS... the exception is MERS.

klodolph 7y ago
Spanish flu is also an exception, because it did not come from Spain.
- lostlogin 7y ago
  Somewhat ironic given the likely origin of Spanish Flu. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
freeone3000 7y ago
Ebola is named after a place. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebola_River https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebola_River .
- olliej 7y ago
  And the result of that was immense discrimination against, and fear of, the people from that region. Similar to many people now blaming anyone they perceive to be Chinese.
  - uwuhn 7y ago
    This is a very sensitive subject, so I'm hesitant to comment, but... It sounds like you ultimately support censoring knowledge of the origins of a virus. E.g., no one without some sort of exemplary privilege should be allowed to know where Ebola originated from, because if they have that knowledge, they will behave in a discriminatory and fearful matter. The general public just can't be trusted with that information because they will react to it inappropriately. Changing the name adds an extra degree of separation between hearing/reading the name and knowing the origin (you have to perform an additional step to learn the origin, like reading the Wikipedia article), but your intent remains the same. I am not saying that this mindset is good or bad, right or wrong. I just want to clarify that I am understanding you correctly.
    - lovehashbrowns 7y ago
      Literally everything counts as censorship nowadays, huh? This isn't hiding the origin or making it privileged information. This is to help curb irrational fears against a certain area. What's funny is that this change in naming convention started within the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin_Nombre_orthohantavirus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin_Nombre_orthohantavirus Discovered in 1993 near the Canyon del Muerte on the Navajo Reservation, it was originally named the Muerto Canyon hantavirus, in keeping with the convention for naming new pathogens.[2] However, the Navajo Nation objected to the name in 1994.[3] It was also near the Four Corners point in the United States, so the virologists then tried naming it the "Four Corners virus". The name was changed after local residents raised objections.[4] In frustration, the virologists changed it to Sin Nombre, meaning "without a name" in Spanish.
      - uwuhn 7y ago
        The point is that information is deliberately abstracted behind an additional layer for the sake of making it more difficult for the average person to obtain, and the ultimate intent behind that added friction. You aren't responding to my question regarding intent at all. >This is to help curb irrational fears against a certain area. ...by adding an extra degree of separation between the name and knowledge of the origin. Right? Do you disagree?
        lovehashbrowns 7y ago
        Censor and censorship bring with them different connotations, connotations that you purposely want to include; do you agree on that? It's not adding a degree of separation between name and knowledge, no. It's removing unnecessary and also potentially-damaging information from the name of a pathogen. Why are you not advocating for a name like SARS-CoV-2, which contains more information and is more accurate?
        uwuhn 7y ago
        >It's not adding a degree of separation between name and knowledge, no. It's removing unnecessary and also potentially-damaging information from the name of a pathogen How is this not just adding a degree of separation between the name and knowledge of the "unnecessary and also potentially-damaging" information? That's...exactly what it is. You have to perform one more step to reach the information. It's not "removed" because you can still access it. That's what an additional degree of separation means. >Why are you not advocating for a name like SARS-CoV-2, which contains more information and is more accurate? I don't care about the name at all, and you are making huge assumptions here. I would even argue that having SARS in the name is problematic due to its prior association with a specific region in the general public's mind. I'm surprised you didn't consider that before me.
- slg 7y ago
  >In 1976, Ebola virus (EBOV) was first identified in Yambuku, 111 kilometers (69 mi) from the Ebola River, but Peter Piot decided to name it after the river so that the town would not be associated with the disease's stigma. There is an irony in linking to that Wiki article that states that Ebola was not named after the town it was discovered for the exact reason some are saying COVID-19 shouldn't be named after Wuhan or China.
  - lovehashbrowns 7y ago
    There's also irony in this conspiracy theory that China forced convention to change in order to make themselves look better... But the convention started changing mainly with the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin_Nombre_orthohantavirus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin_Nombre_orthohantavirus Discovered in 1993 near the Canyon del Muerte on the Navajo Reservation, it was originally named the Muerto Canyon hantavirus, in keeping with the convention for naming new pathogens.[2] However, the Navajo Nation objected to the name in 1994.[3] It was also near the Four Corners point in the United States, so the virologists then tried naming it the "Four Corners virus". The name was changed after local residents raised objections.[4] In frustration, the virologists changed it to Sin Nombre, meaning "without a name" in Spanish.
NotACop182 7y ago
No Spanish flu was first reported on a military base in the USA. But we call it the Spanish flu even if we don’t know it’s original origin. Stigmatizing areas is stupid. China earned it but we are better than that.
schoen 7y ago
I think you're right but I thought of one other counterexample, Marburg virus (named for the site of its first outbreak, near Frankfurt, Germany). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marburg_virus_disease#1967_outbreak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marburg_virus_disease#1967_out...

Every other virus that comes from a place gets named after it. Well, that's clearly not true. Swine Flu, H1N1 Pandemic, Ebola epidemic, SARS... the exception is MERS.

klodolph 7y ago

Spanish flu is also an exception, because it did not come from Spain.

lostlogin 7y ago
Somewhat ironic given the likely origin of Spanish Flu. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

freeone3000 7y ago

Ebola is named after a place. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebola_River https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebola_River .

olliej 7y ago
And the result of that was immense discrimination against, and fear of, the people from that region. Similar to many people now blaming anyone they perceive to be Chinese.
- uwuhn 7y ago
  This is a very sensitive subject, so I'm hesitant to comment, but... It sounds like you ultimately support censoring knowledge of the origins of a virus. E.g., no one without some sort of exemplary privilege should be allowed to know where Ebola originated from, because if they have that knowledge, they will behave in a discriminatory and fearful matter. The general public just can't be trusted with that information because they will react to it inappropriately. Changing the name adds an extra degree of separation between hearing/reading the name and knowing the origin (you have to perform an additional step to learn the origin, like reading the Wikipedia article), but your intent remains the same. I am not saying that this mindset is good or bad, right or wrong. I just want to clarify that I am understanding you correctly.
  - lovehashbrowns 7y ago
    Literally everything counts as censorship nowadays, huh? This isn't hiding the origin or making it privileged information. This is to help curb irrational fears against a certain area. What's funny is that this change in naming convention started within the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin_Nombre_orthohantavirus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin_Nombre_orthohantavirus Discovered in 1993 near the Canyon del Muerte on the Navajo Reservation, it was originally named the Muerto Canyon hantavirus, in keeping with the convention for naming new pathogens.[2] However, the Navajo Nation objected to the name in 1994.[3] It was also near the Four Corners point in the United States, so the virologists then tried naming it the "Four Corners virus". The name was changed after local residents raised objections.[4] In frustration, the virologists changed it to Sin Nombre, meaning "without a name" in Spanish.
    - uwuhn 7y ago
      The point is that information is deliberately abstracted behind an additional layer for the sake of making it more difficult for the average person to obtain, and the ultimate intent behind that added friction. You aren't responding to my question regarding intent at all. >This is to help curb irrational fears against a certain area. ...by adding an extra degree of separation between the name and knowledge of the origin. Right? Do you disagree?
      - lovehashbrowns 7y ago
        Censor and censorship bring with them different connotations, connotations that you purposely want to include; do you agree on that? It's not adding a degree of separation between name and knowledge, no. It's removing unnecessary and also potentially-damaging information from the name of a pathogen. Why are you not advocating for a name like SARS-CoV-2, which contains more information and is more accurate?
        uwuhn 7y ago
        >It's not adding a degree of separation between name and knowledge, no. It's removing unnecessary and also potentially-damaging information from the name of a pathogen How is this not just adding a degree of separation between the name and knowledge of the "unnecessary and also potentially-damaging" information? That's...exactly what it is. You have to perform one more step to reach the information. It's not "removed" because you can still access it. That's what an additional degree of separation means. >Why are you not advocating for a name like SARS-CoV-2, which contains more information and is more accurate? I don't care about the name at all, and you are making huge assumptions here. I would even argue that having SARS in the name is problematic due to its prior association with a specific region in the general public's mind. I'm surprised you didn't consider that before me.
slg 7y ago
>In 1976, Ebola virus (EBOV) was first identified in Yambuku, 111 kilometers (69 mi) from the Ebola River, but Peter Piot decided to name it after the river so that the town would not be associated with the disease's stigma. There is an irony in linking to that Wiki article that states that Ebola was not named after the town it was discovered for the exact reason some are saying COVID-19 shouldn't be named after Wuhan or China.
- lovehashbrowns 7y ago
  There's also irony in this conspiracy theory that China forced convention to change in order to make themselves look better... But the convention started changing mainly with the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin_Nombre_orthohantavirus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin_Nombre_orthohantavirus Discovered in 1993 near the Canyon del Muerte on the Navajo Reservation, it was originally named the Muerto Canyon hantavirus, in keeping with the convention for naming new pathogens.[2] However, the Navajo Nation objected to the name in 1994.[3] It was also near the Four Corners point in the United States, so the virologists then tried naming it the "Four Corners virus". The name was changed after local residents raised objections.[4] In frustration, the virologists changed it to Sin Nombre, meaning "without a name" in Spanish.

NotACop182 7y ago

No Spanish flu was first reported on a military base in the USA. But we call it the Spanish flu even if we don’t know it’s original origin. Stigmatizing areas is stupid. China earned it but we are better than that.

schoen 7y ago

I think you're right but I thought of one other counterexample, Marburg virus (named for the site of its first outbreak, near Frankfurt, Germany). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marburg_virus_disease#1967_outbreak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marburg_virus_disease#1967_out...