02-10-2021, 12:12 PM
(02-10-2021, 10:57 AM)M_T Wrote:Just a tad bit of sarcasm after the msm consternation over the "Chinese Virus". . . .(02-10-2021, 10:14 AM)cardcrimson Wrote: Oh Sh*t indeed. I find it extremely offensive that the strains are labeled South African and UK. Prejudice and xenophobia, here we come. . . .
Hey, didya hear about B.1.426? Â No, not the prison joke, but the COVID strain. Â Better watch out!
Seriously though, B.1.1.7, B.1.351, P.1 are hard to keep distinct.  If someone referred to "B.1.1.351" or "B.1.315", did he just make a typo or did he mean something different that "B.1.351".  There's a reason we don't refer to laws by their numbers, or people by SSNs, etc.  Words have a lot of extra (or extraneous) information in them.  That makes them easy to distinguish.  "UK", "South African", and "Brazil" are unlikely to get confused; especially so because we have a geography in our mind that keeps them separate.  Sure, they could be named  "Blue", "Prejudice", and "Trot" and still be very distinct.
I wouldn't want them named "UK", "England", and "Britain"  or  "51.5,-0.1", "-25.7,28.2", "-15.8,-47.9".
I bet you're going to have to Google "B.1.426" to find out what I used as a teaser. Â Not much info in that name.
I don't find it offensive to have a disease named after where it was first identified, or a dog named for the kennels where it was born. Â What is offensive to me is associating the location to a negative connotation.
As for B.1.426, I assume you're referring to the Newsom/Garcetti strain. . . .