3 ms·

Neither are, and generally it's preferred to use another term. If you go to the CDC web page on variants for instance you'll see that it call sit B.1.1.7 not UK

by neaden 6y ago

Neither are, and generally it's preferred to use another term. If you go to the CDC web page on variants for instance you'll see that it call sit B.1.1.7 not UK Variant https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/transmission/variant.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/transmission/varia...

Arnt 6y ago
That seems a bit too pedantic... I think the correct answer is that certain persons tried to use the virus' chinese origin as a smear, and now it's unusable. You can't talk like those people because those people talked like that. This happens all the time in Germany (where I live now): Nazis use a phrase or something, and after that using it makes one sound like a nazi even if that's really completely unreasonable. There was a fine example around 2002, when the newspaper editors had a long discussion on how to translate the name of dhs.gov without triggering any prejudice in the readers, just because a long-dead nazi tended to use phrases very much like various possible translations. Noone's been using e.g the South African origin of that variant as a smear, so it doesn't carry any connotations.
- jfengel 6y ago
  It's not a good idea to name diseases after places, because it's misleading and not informative. The WHO has been telling people that "a disease name should consist of generic descriptive terms" for years: https://www.who.int/news/item/08-05-2015-who-issues-best-practices-for-naming-new-human-infectious-diseases https://www.who.int/news/item/08-05-2015-who-issues-best-pra... It goes well beyond smears. The WHO notes that it can "provoke a backlash against members of particular religious or ethnic communities, create unjustified barriers to travel, commerce and trade, and trigger needless slaughtering of food animals". They point out that the scientists need to get ahead of it. Once a name has taken off in the popular press, it's hard to stop. I'll note that the Department of Homeland Security has a somewhat Orwellian ring in English as well, and that was noted at the time. It sounds like somebody is trying too hard.

by neaden 6y ago

Arnt 6y ago

That seems a bit too pedantic... I think the correct answer is that certain persons tried to use the virus' chinese origin as a smear, and now it's unusable. You can't talk like those people because those people talked like that. This happens all the time in Germany (where I live now): Nazis use a phrase or something, and after that using it makes one sound like a nazi even if that's really completely unreasonable. There was a fine example around 2002, when the newspaper editors had a long discussion on how to translate the name of dhs.gov without triggering any prejudice in the readers, just because a long-dead nazi tended to use phrases very much like various possible translations. Noone's been using e.g the South African origin of that variant as a smear, so it doesn't carry any connotations.

jfengel 6y ago
It's not a good idea to name diseases after places, because it's misleading and not informative. The WHO has been telling people that "a disease name should consist of generic descriptive terms" for years: https://www.who.int/news/item/08-05-2015-who-issues-best-practices-for-naming-new-human-infectious-diseases https://www.who.int/news/item/08-05-2015-who-issues-best-pra... It goes well beyond smears. The WHO notes that it can "provoke a backlash against members of particular religious or ethnic communities, create unjustified barriers to travel, commerce and trade, and trigger needless slaughtering of food animals". They point out that the scientists need to get ahead of it. Once a name has taken off in the popular press, it's hard to stop. I'll note that the Department of Homeland Security has a somewhat Orwellian ring in English as well, and that was noted at the time. It sounds like somebody is trying too hard.