zlacker

Nobody in the world except the US right called it that, and it is indeed uncommon to name viruses after its place of origin.

>>bildun+(OP)
Literally any new variant has been called by its origin in the last year: -kent/brit variant -indian variant -california variant

What are you on about?

>>bildun+(OP)
Except for the Spanish flu, the Brazilian flu, almost every single mammarenavirus strain...

>>averev+Y5
The Spanish Flu most probably originated in the US, not Spain. Spain just had a pretty free press and published much about it. Never heard about the Brazilian Flu and couldn't find out when and where this was supposed to be, so can't comment here.

>>zpeti+E4
> What are you on about?

Not those variants, obviously.

>>bildun+88
The question wasn't historically if the place-of-origin names were accurate. The question was if they were historically common.

I think naming diseases after places is a bad practice we should probably do away with, but it certainly has precedent. Offhand, there's also the Marburg virus. My understanding is also that it was unusual to name the Ebola virus after the nearby river instead of the nearby town.

>>bildun+(OP)
Mers, lyme, west nile, Rocky Mountain, Zika, hanta, Ebola.

>>bildun+(OP)
Back in the early days Singapore very quickly created a fantastic web based information panel on the state of the Virus in the city. It's still running but they no longer use the original url: http://wuhanvirus.sg

>>KMag+f9
Isn't it similar to naming medical conditions after the people that discover them? After all, it's naming pathogens after the place where there were was adequate diagnostic expertise to identify them and in which there was sufficient scientific and press freedom to report on them. And geography is obviously important in the context of epidemics/pandemics. No country or locality should receive special treatment in this regard, but much of the MSM appears to have been bought or cowed into submission by the geopolitical influence of the CCP.