> The article sets out specifically to caution about the misuse of jargon, so I think that probably is the important point that it seeks to communicate. I think

> The article sets out specifically to caution about the misuse of jargon, so I think that probably is the important point that it seeks to communicate. I think that it goes off track and gets bogged down a bit in the details of SARS-CoV-2. That's an interesting hypothesis and you're making me think that maybe I was wrong. It certainly was effective in getting me to stop misusing the word "strain". My argument was based on the idea that they were trying to communicate the fact that there are no meaningful differences between different genetic sequences of SARS-CoV-2, and got bogged down in the semantics of the words "strain" and "isolate".