[teejers1]

to 2006 Alum, because providing a geographic name is a factual indicator that helps people associate virus with origin.  Is there something wrong with that?  

For example, if there was some virus that broke out from a Stanford lab or something and it was colloquially called "the Stanford virus," would you have a problem with that?  If so, why?  

Trying to find nefarious intent in everything must get so tiresome.  And btw, this has nothing to do with the occupant of the WH who has clustered the federal response to a fare thee well.

P.S.  To your "reverse question," I'd have the same response - why can't those be called by geographic origins, too?  They can have "generally accepted scientific names," too, but there is nothing "wrong" with giving virus's more readily associative names, at least from this angle.

[teejers1]

to 2006 Alum, because providing a geographic name is a factual indicator that helps people associate virus with origin.  Is there something wrong with that?  

For example, if there was some virus that broke out from a Stanford lab or something and it was colloquially called "the Stanford virus," would you have a problem with that?  If so, why?  

Trying to find nefarious intent in everything must get so tiresome.  And btw, this has nothing to do with the occupant of the WH who has clustered the federal response to a fare thee well.

P.S.  To your "reverse question," I'd have the same response - why can't those be called by geographic origins, too?  They can have "generally accepted scientific names," too, but there is nothing "wrong" with giving virus's more readily associative names, at least from this angle.