• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

Would you report this kind of violation of stay at home order?

Page 10 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,271
232
106
1) Lol another incompetent making a medium post. Not only does he use the same faulty guns per capita measure instead of % gun ownership he tries to prove his point using excel, and thinks that he should get an r^2 of 0.7 using a single IV for his ‘model’. Whoever wrote that post is an idiot.

2) you clearly didn’t read the guy’s post because he stated gun ownership leads to increased suicide numbers.

3) he also later admits that gun ownership is associated with higher homicide rates in high quality research but then tries to hand wave it away by saying other things are correlated more strongly.

Now let’s look at some actual empirical research on how fun ownership relates to homicide.



Still using that per capita measure, which is nonsense.

Anyways I just thought it was funny to point out that you owned yourself with the dumb medium lost you linked.
First off medium.com is a left leaning site, not a right wing site. This is according to mediabias.com even. You still use the same logic fallacy of attacking the messenger when you can't attack the message. The article on medium is very thorough at debunking your crap. If you don't like that, then how about rand.org. This site goes through every study ever conducted on this issue to date.


Basically any study that finds a correlation is a weak correlation between 0.5% and 0.9%. Most of those studies are done using high crime poverty urban areas. You know, the kind where people need to buy guns to protect themselves. Those same studies find that an increase on the black population increases gun deaths suicides and non suicides as well at a higher correlation rate of almost 6%. But as the author states, making the argument that black people are at fault is stupid as it should be. That's why it's a correlation and not a causation. In fact, almost everything has a higher correlation rate than gun ownership does when looking at possible links to increased suicide rates. However, the ONLY causation is mental health. Period. I am not talking depression either as those with long lasting depression actually don't attempt suicide that much. It is a spur of the moment thing where some drastic to cause despair happens to make people attempt suicide. You not liking per capita comparison though is your own stupidity. Vast majority of studies show zero link between gun ownership and suicide rates as a whole when looking at macrocosms and not microcosms. Microcosms studies is all the study links you have provided do. Since the vast majority of posters here are rabid anti-gun grabbers, the vast majority will not have a clue what I'm talking about and will only side with you out of sheer partisanship.

Lastly, per capita is how every damn study is done. These studies count individual gun owners, not a gun owner that owns multiple guns as more gun owners. None of them do that. You wanting to call the studies I use to disprove your nonsense as nonsense shows how little intelligence you have on this issue still. I am not typing this to convince you though. You've proven over the years that you lack the intelligence to comprehend anything outside your echo chamber. This is for the reader that might wander in here with a brain and realize how full of shit you are.
 
Last edited:

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
70,181
18,981
136
First off medium.com is a left leaning site, not a right wing site. This is according to mediabias.com even. You still use the same logic fallacy of attacking the messenger when you can't attack the message. The article on medium is very thorough at debunking your crap.
Uhmm, I listed several things as to why the message was wrong. For someone who so consistently complains that others are bad at reading comprehension it’s pretty funny that you missed that.

Medium is a site that anyone can contribute to and it has few editorial controls. It is not peer reviewed research.

If you don't like that, then how about rand.org. This site goes through every study ever conducted on this issue to date.

Lol, another link you clearly did not bother to read as it supports my position, not yours. Nice self ownage.

RAND is saying that the evidence supports a link between gun ownership and suicide. Its only criticism is that all possible confounds have not been eliminated but that is of course due to the restrictions on gun data collection that the gun nuts themselves have put in place, precisely so that research into the effects of gun ownership is impeded. It recommends those restrictions be removed.

Basically any study that finds a correlation is a weak correlation between 0.5% and 0.9%. Most of those studies are done using high crime poverty urban areas. You know, the kind where people need to buy guns to protect themselves. Those same studies find that an increase on the black population increases gun deaths suicides and non suicides as well at a higher correlation rate of almost 6%. But as the author states, making the argument that black people are at fault is stupid as it should be. That's why it's a correlation and not a causation. In fact, almost everything has a higher correlation rate than gun ownership does when looking at possible links to increased suicide rates. However, the ONLY causation is mental health. Period. I am not talking depression either as those with long lasting depression actually don't attempt suicide that much. It is a spur of the moment thing where some drastic to cause despair happens to make people attempt suicide. You not liking per capita comparison though is your own stupidity. Vast majority of studies show zero link between gun ownership and suicide rates as a whole when looking at macrocosms and not microcosms. Microcosms studies is all the study links you have provided do. Since the vast majority of posters here are rabid anti-gun grabbers, the vast majority will not have a clue what I'm talking about and will only side with you out of sheer partisanship.
Saying that other things affect suicide risk more than gun ownership is irrelevant. The question is if gun ownership affects suicide risk, which it does.

Thank you for implicitly surrendering on this though. You originally stated gun ownership had no effect on suicide rates, now you have retreated to arguing that other things affect those rates more. I know you aren’t capable of admitting when you’re wrong so this is about as close as we can expect.

Lastly, per capita is how every damn study is done. These studies count individual gun owners, not a gun owner that owns multiple guns as more gun owners. None of them do that. You wanting to call the studies I use to disprove your nonsense as nonsense shows how little intelligence you have on this issue still. I am not typing this to convince you though. You've proven over the years that you lack the intelligence to comprehend anything outside your echo chamber. This is for the reader that might wander in here with a brain and realize how full of shit you are.
Competent research looks at the percentage of the population that owns guns, yes, but the clown from your Medium post did not and neither have you, both using total number of guns or guns per 100k. Do you need me to quote your own words back at you again?

Finally, it’s pretty funny that the guy who is always whining about personal attacks repeatedly called me stupid here. Should you be reporting yourself?
 
Mar 11, 2004
20,549
2,671
126
Guns per capita is an irrelevant measure as if my neighbor owns one gun or one hundred guns doesn’t matter. It’s if they own one or not. The guy who wrote that non-peer reviewed opinion article made a basic analytic error that he should be embarrassed about. He then compounded this error by comparing the US to other countries and other cultures, introducing an additional confounding variable that he made no attempt to control for.

Actually competent research analyzes risk factors for suicide and finds that all else being equal, owning a gun makes it more likely you will die by suicide. This is a highly robust finding accepted by all major medical organizations in the country.



If a gun was obtained legally is irrelevant as to whether or not guns are a risk factor for suicide.



These ‘bans’ affected only a small percentage of the guns in circulation in the country and once again, aggregate numbers of guns are not meaningful.



This is bizarre and irrational logic. Bridges are not removed because their utility exceeds their costs. Guns do not have utility that exceeds their costs. Regardless, I was simply speaking to the well established statistical relationship between gun ownership and risk of completed suicide.


He knows that they put stuff like nets on bridges, to catch people jumping, right?

But yes that is the reason why even though cars can be used to kill people (a lot of people quite easily), their utility and non-singular use for killing makes them worthwhile. Plus, again, specifically because of how many people are being killed by/in cars (via even just accidents) we're developing technology up to and including completely removing the human element from driving a car.

I'm kinda surprised you guys still bother replying seriously to posters like that. You're not gonna change their minds, it's just banging your heads against a brick wall IMO.
Plus considering how much they run to the mods to cry.
 

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,271
232
106
Uhmm, I listed several things as to why the message was wrong. For someone who so consistently complains that others are bad at reading comprehension it’s pretty funny that you missed that.

Medium is a site that anyone can contribute to and it has few editorial controls. It is not peer reviewed research.



Lol, another link you clearly did not bother to read as it supports my position, not yours. Nice self ownage.

RAND is saying that the evidence supports a link between gun ownership and suicide. Its only criticism is that all possible confounds have not been eliminated but that is of course due to the restrictions on gun data collection that the gun nuts themselves have put in place, precisely so that research into the effects of gun ownership is impeded. It recommends those restrictions be removed.



Saying that other things affect suicide risk more than gun ownership is irrelevant. The question is if gun ownership affects suicide risk, which it does.

Thank you for implicitly surrendering on this though. You originally stated gun ownership had no effect on suicide rates, now you have retreated to arguing that other things affect those rates more. I know you aren’t capable of admitting when you’re wrong so this is about as close as we can expect.


Competent research looks at the percentage of the population that owns guns, yes, but the clown from your Medium post did not and neither have you, both using total number of guns or guns per 100k. Do you need me to quote your own words back at you again?

Finally, it’s pretty funny that the guy who is always whining about personal attacks repeatedly called me stupid here. Should you be reporting yourself?
You are clearly a person that doesn't read. It shows the studies that display links, and their crapped up way they reached those conclusions, but even with those conclusions the most correlation value that could be drawn was 0.9% and literally EVERYTHING ELSE has a higher correlation value. The fact is you are completely intellectually dishonest here to not even read the entire article is your own stupidity.


Quasi-Experimental Results

In the earliest of the four studies in our review, Miller et al. (2006) used data from the GSS on firearm prevalence in census regions over time. Using generalized estimating equations with region-level fixed effects, the authors concluded that a regional reduction in firearms of 10 percent would result in an estimated 4.2-percent reduction in firearm suicides, 2.5-percent reduction in total suicides, and no change in nonfirearm suicides.


Briggs and Tabarrok (2014) used four measures of gun prevalence over time: state-level ownership from the BRFSS in 2001, 2002, and 2004; state-level estimates of searches for gun-related terms on Google from 2004 to 2009; FS/S from 2000 to 2009; and a composite index comprising FS/S, the rate of background checks for gun purchases, and the rate of unintentional death by firearm for 2000 to 2009. In ordinary-least-squares models with time and regional (not state) fixed effects, along with other regional covariate adjustments, all four measures of gun prevalence showed that a 1-percent increase in the prevalence of individuals having firearms in their households in a state is associated with a positive and statistically significant increase in firearm suicides (between 1.3 and 3.1 percent), and three of the four measures found positive and statistically significant increases in total suicides (between 0.7 and 0.9 percent) (see the table below). The effect on total suicide was not significant at p < 0.05 for the direct measure of gun ownership from the BRFSS.

Estimated Effects of a 1-Percent Increase in Firearm Prevalence on Firearm and Total Suicides

Measure of Gun PrevalenceIncrease in Firearm SuicideIncrease in Total Suicide
Gun ownership (from the BRFSS)1.7 percent0.5 percent (not significant)
Gun-related Google searches1.3 percent0.7 percent
FS/S3.1 percent0.9 percent
Composite index (FS/S, rate of background checks for gun purchases, rate of unintentional death by firearm)2.3 percent0.8 percent



These studies were targeted studies and the studies widely cited for showing a link between firearm ownership and suicides. But they are are NOT statistically significant. As they are targeted studies to high urban areas in the US or had some other horrible uncontrolled factor for how they were conducted.


If you scroll down to the bottom that page you'll read the big word:

Conclusions

NRC (2004) concluded that the causal relationship between household gun ownership and suicide is unclear. Since that 2004 report, evidence from U.S.-based studies has substantiated associations that existed then—namely, that


  • people who die by suicide are more likely than matched controls to live in a house known by informants to contain a gun
  • living in a house known by informants to have a gun stored unsafely is associated with higher risk of firearm suicide than living in a house with a safely secured gun, but unsafe storage has no association with nonfirearm suicide
  • changes in firearm prevalence in a region are associated with changes in suicide prevalence in the region.
Although the empirical research is ambiguous, which suggests that there is more to learn before we can conclude with confidence that gun prevalence has a causal effect of increasing suicide rates .

Stronger study designs may be available to more persuasively establish the causal effects of gun availability or gun prevalence on suicide risk. However, many such study designs are currently hampered by poor information on the prevalence of gun ownership and the consequent reliance on proxy measures of availability and prevalence. For this reason, we recommend that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or another federal agency resume routine collection of voluntarily provided survey data on gun ownership and use.

Not reading the damn conclusion of the whole break down of the various studies on that page, and all the others I posted is your fucking logic fallacy.
 
Last edited:

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,271
232
106
Bullshit. Do we call the N1H1 virus Swine Flu virus or American/Kansas Flu virus? It originated in Kansas.

BTW....the Spanish Flu also originated in......Kansas.

The reason it's called the Spanish Flu is simply because both the U.S. and most of Europe, which were involved in WWI, essentially put a muzzle on reporting of the flu and its deaths. The unbiased, unwashed information the world got on the Spanish Flu came from Spanish newspapers....Spain was a neutral in WWI and they were almost the sole place to obtain facts about the flu, hence became known as the Spanish Flu, despite it originating in the U.S.
WOW the bullshit from you.

The Spanish Flu is called the Spanish Flu because it was widely considered to have come from the Iberian Peninsula in 1918. (https://www.history.com/news/why-was-it-called-the-spanish-flu). One person in 2003 has put forward a theory is could have started in Kansas. Even if true, that is almost 100 years after it has been named. There are lots of problems with his theory. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu)

We name viruses after the localized place it comes from if we know that origin. Otherwise, if we know the species origin then we use that name if it hasn't been used before. That has always been the case. We know this virus started in Wuhan a localized origin. The proper name is the Wuhan virus.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
70,181
18,981
136
You are clearly a person that doesn't read. It shows the studies that display links, and their crapped up way they reached those conclusions, but even with those conclusions the most correlation value that could be drawn was 0.9% and literally EVERYTHING ELSE has a higher correlation value. The fact is you are completely intellectually dishonest here to not even read the entire article is your own stupidity.
No, you don’t know what you’re talking about.

1) the 0.9% you bring up is saying that for every 1% increase in gun ownership you get a 0.9% increase in suicides. This is a beta coefficient and not a correlation, but whatever - that’s a strong result! Nearly 1:1.

2) everything else most certainly did not have a higher value, specific covariates they chose because of their relationship to suicide had a higher value. This isn’t uncommon at all, and to anyone who deals with stats is not particularly interesting.

Quasi-Experimental Results

In the earliest of the four studies in our review, Miller et al. (2006) used data from the GSS on firearm prevalence in census regions over time. Using generalized estimating equations with region-level fixed effects, the authors concluded that a regional reduction in firearms of 10 percent would result in an estimated 4.2-percent reduction in firearm suicides, 2.5-percent reduction in total suicides, and no change in nonfirearm suicides.


Briggs and Tabarrok (2014) used four measures of gun prevalence over time: state-level ownership from the BRFSS in 2001, 2002, and 2004; state-level estimates of searches for gun-related terms on Google from 2004 to 2009; FS/S from 2000 to 2009; and a composite index comprising FS/S, the rate of background checks for gun purchases, and the rate of unintentional death by firearm for 2000 to 2009. In ordinary-least-squares models with time and regional (not state) fixed effects, along with other regional covariate adjustments, all four measures of gun prevalence showed that a 1-percent increase in the prevalence of individuals having firearms in their households in a state is associated with a positive and statistically significant increase in firearm suicides (between 1.3 and 3.1 percent), and three of the four measures found positive and statistically significant increases in total suicides (between 0.7 and 0.9 percent) (see the table below). The effect on total suicide was not significant at p < 0.05 for the direct measure of gun ownership from the BRFSS.

Estimated Effects of a 1-Percent Increase in Firearm Prevalence on Firearm and Total Suicides

Measure of Gun PrevalenceIncrease in Firearm SuicideIncrease in Total Suicide
Gun ownership (from the BRFSS)1.7 percent0.5 percent (not significant)
Gun-related Google searches1.3 percent0.7 percent
FS/S3.1 percent0.9 percent
Composite index (FS/S, rate of background checks for gun purchases, rate of unintentional death by firearm)2.3 percent0.8 percent


These studies were targeted studies and the studies widely cited for showing a link between firearm ownership and suicides. But they are are NOT statistically significant. As they are targeted studies to high urban areas in the US or had some other horrible uncontrolled factor for how they were conducted.
You clearly didn't understand what you were reading.

1) as per your own quoted piece every single study but ONE found a statistically significant relationship between gun ownership and suicide.

2) As for Briggs and Tabarrock 2014, let's see what they say! Here is their paper, and their most relevant takeaways:


- Firearms are found to be very strongly related to firearm suicides, as expected.

- Firearms are also found to be strongly related to overall suicides, despite evidence for substantial substitution in method of suicide.
So thank you, the authors of the exact study which you say proves your point say it proves the opposite. You owned yourself yet again.

If you scroll down to the bottom that page you'll read the big word:

Conclusions

NRC (2004) concluded that the causal relationship between household gun ownership and suicide is unclear. Since that 2004 report, evidence from U.S.-based studies has substantiated associations that existed then—namely, that


  • people who die by suicide are more likely than matched controls to live in a house known by informants to contain a gun
  • living in a house known by informants to have a gun stored unsafely is associated with higher risk of firearm suicide than living in a house with a safely secured gun, but unsafe storage has no association with nonfirearm suicide
  • changes in firearm prevalence in a region are associated with changes in suicide prevalence in the region.
Although the empirical research is ambiguous, which suggests that there is more to learn before we can conclude with confidence that gun prevalence has a causal effect of increasing suicide rates .

Stronger study designs may be available to more persuasively establish the causal effects of gun availability or gun prevalence on suicide risk. However, many such study designs are currently hampered by poor information on the prevalence of gun ownership and the consequent reliance on proxy measures of availability and prevalence. For this reason, we recommend that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or another federal agency resume routine collection of voluntarily provided survey data on gun ownership and use.

Not reading the damn conclusion of the whole break down of the various studies on that page, and all the others I posted is your fucking logic fallacy.
Now let's include that very next paragraph of the conclusion that you cut out, hahaha:

These observations are all consistent with the conclusion that gun availability increases the risk of suicide. Indeed, there appears to be a consensus among most experts in the public health community that these observed associations, in combination with the results of natural experiments like those in Switzerland and Israel (Reisch et al., 2013; Lubin et al., 2010), provide strong evidence that gun availability has a causal effect on suicide rates.
lol. Why would you do this when I already clearly read the piece? Did you think I wouldn't notice?

Despite this mounting evidence, quasi-experimental studies providing strong evidence for an effect of gun prevalence on suicide risk have not yet been conducted. Therefore, those who doubt the causal effect can view the observed associations between gun prevalence and suicide rates over time or across regions as indicating that the kinds of people who might consider suicide at some future time may be more likely to purchase a gun (which is a plausible interpretation of, for instance, findings in Wintemute et al., 1999) or that informants in case-control studies may be biased toward describing unsafe storage practices in cases where firearms were used in suicides or may be more likely to incorrectly deny gun availability for control cases in which no firearm injuries occurred.
Exactly as I already stated it is saying here that there is strong evidence for this connection but that possible confounds still exist so anti gun control people can still point to those.

In case it needs to be repeated, RAND says there is 'strong evidence that gun availability has a causal effect on suicide rates'. This is exactly the opposite of what you are claiming. You owned yourself... again.

And why is that? Well, the paragraph you quoted says why:
Stronger study designs may be available to more persuasively establish the causal effects of gun availability or gun prevalence on suicide risk. However, many such study designs are currently hampered by poor information on the prevalence of gun ownership and the consequent reliance on proxy measures of availability and prevalence. For this reason, we recommend that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or another federal agency resume routine collection of voluntarily provided survey data on gun ownership and use.
The reason study designs are hampered by poor information on gun ownership is that gun nuts effectively banned the federal government from conducting research on gun violence for the exact reason that they were afraid of what it would find, and most private research relies on data collected by the government.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
70,181
18,981
136
This is what I'm talking about man, brick wall. The clown doesn't even read the articles and doesn't have the required knowledge to understand why some of the things he links are garbage. You're wasting your time.

They do? Doesn't seem to be working too well.
I'm very aware that this idiot is not capable of admitting he was wrong but I have a personal weakness for dunking on stupid people who think they are smart.

Sometimes I do feel a bit bad because I think he may be on the spectrum or have some sort of mental illness which makes him behave this way, but also maybe he's just a jerk, haha.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,276
2,973
126
Ladies and Gentlemen. let me point out that HumblePie is way in over his head and really does not understand or cannot comprehend or does comprehend but doesn`t know how to process facts correctly!I is a loosing battle trying to reason with this person! He reminds me of our once but now gone missing local aracnid!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

abj13

Senior member
Jan 27, 2005
832
436
136
We name viruses after the localized place it comes from if we know that origin. Otherwise, if we know the species origin then we use that name if it hasn't been used before. That has always been the case. We know this virus started in Wuhan a localized origin. The proper name is the Wuhan virus.
I've already posted this, but you're going to purposely ignore it again. Saying the proper name of the virus is the "Wuhan Virus" is dishonest and demonstrates you are nothing but a partisan hack.

There is a naming convention for coronaviruses already set in place by virology experts and other scientists including the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses . The SARS-CoV-2 virus is not sufficiently different enough from SARS-CoV-1 and all other SARS-related viruses to be called anything but a SARS virus. This group has been named this way for 17 years. The final name of SARS-CoV-2 was decided and published on March 2nd. The fact that you are purposely using the incorrect name for this virus nearly 3 months after this name was decided by virology experts clearly demonstrates how ignorant and purposefully toxic you are being by using an unaccepted name for SARS-CoV-2.
 

allisolm

Elite Member
Administrator
Jan 2, 2001
23,473
1,413
136
As abj13 said , the name is SARS-CoV-2, NOT Wuhan virus.

WOW the bullshit from you.

The proper name is the Wuhan virus.
Abj13 is correct. You are not. You have used the improper name 5 times in this thread. All 5 have been wrong. The virus's proper name is SARS-CoV-2 and the disease it causes is COVID-19. If you need another reference besides abj13's try


Please let us know if you still do not understand. All of us agree that the BS is plentiful, but I'm pretty sure the rest of us see it coming from a different direction.
 

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,271
232
106
As abj13 said , the name is SARS-CoV-2, NOT Wuhan virus.



Abj13 is correct. You are not. You have used the improper name 5 times in this thread. All 5 have been wrong. The virus's proper name is SARS-CoV-2 and the disease it causes is COVID-19. If you need another reference besides abj13's try


Please let us know if you still do not understand. All of us agree that the BS is plentiful, but I'm pretty sure the rest of us see it coming from a different direction.
SARS-CoV-2 was the original scientific name. Most things have a scientific name and a common name. Humans and Homo Sapiens for example. The standardized nomenclature for how to derive the common name of a virus is by its localized origin. Barring a specific place, or if one is already taken, then the original carrier if known. Then they are named after the host cell they inhabit. Last but not least the person who discovered it can give it the common name. Those are the typical naming rules for viruses. Since we know the localized area the virus comes from, Wuhan, and there isn't another virus named for that area yet then the proper naming convention for the common name is to call it by its point of origin. I have no problem calling it by SARS-CoV-2, but that is not a common name. Wuhan Flu or Wuhan Virus would be the common names going by nomenclature.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
70,181
18,981
136
SARS-CoV-2 was the original scientific name. Most things have a scientific name and a common name. Humans and Homo Sapiens for example. The standardized nomenclature for how to derive the common name of a virus is by its localized origin. Barring a specific place, or if one is already taken, then the original carrier if known. Then they are named after the host cell they inhabit. Last but not least the person who discovered it can give it the common name. Those are the typical naming rules for viruses. Since we know the localized area the virus comes from, Wuhan, and there isn't another virus named for that area yet then the proper naming convention for the common name is to call it by its point of origin. I have no problem calling it by SARS-CoV-2, but that is not a common name. Wuhan Flu or Wuhan Virus would be the common names going by nomenclature.
A quick google search shows ~5.2 billion results for 'covid 19' and about 143 million results for 'wuhan virus', many of those latter results being stories about how you shouldn't call it that.

Assuming the 'common name' means 'what something is commonly called' then the answer is clearly covid 19.
 

allisolm

Elite Member
Administrator
Jan 2, 2001
23,473
1,413
136
SARS-CoV-2 was the original scientific name. Most things have a scientific name and a common name. Humans and Homo Sapiens for example. The standardized nomenclature for how to derive the common name of a virus is by its localized origin. Barring a specific place, or if one is already taken, then the original carrier if known. Then they are named after the host cell they inhabit. Last but not least the person who discovered it can give it the common name. Those are the typical naming rules for viruses. Since we know the localized area the virus comes from, Wuhan, and there isn't another virus named for that area yet then the proper naming convention for the common name is to call it by its point of origin. I have no problem calling it by SARS-CoV-2, but that is not a common name. Wuhan Flu or Wuhan Virus would be the common names going by nomenclature.
You can continue to spout this stuff all you want - it will still be wrong.
 
Last edited:

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
19,275
10,086
136
A quick google search shows ~5.2 billion results for 'covid 19' and about 143 million results for 'wuhan virus', many of those latter results being stories about how you shouldn't call it that.

Assuming the 'common name' means 'what something is commonly called' then the answer is clearly covid 19.
SARS-CoV-2 was the original scientific name. Most things have a scientific name and a common name. Humans and Homo Sapiens for example. The standardized nomenclature for how to derive the common name of a virus is by its localized origin. Barring a specific place, or if one is already taken, then the original carrier if known. Then they are named after the host cell they inhabit. Last but not least the person who discovered it can give it the common name. Those are the typical naming rules for viruses. Since we know the localized area the virus comes from, Wuhan, and there isn't another virus named for that area yet then the proper naming convention for the common name is to call it by its point of origin. I have no problem calling it by SARS-CoV-2, but that is not a common name. Wuhan Flu or Wuhan Virus would be the common names going by nomenclature.
I have yet to have a single conversation in real life with anyone calling it the Wuhan virus or Wuhan flu. The only place I have seen those terms used is by conservatives trying to push a narrative. Like you are doing here.

You are wrong you can choose to be an adult about it or choose to continue to stay on your current path.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

abj13

Senior member
Jan 27, 2005
832
436
136
SARS-CoV-2 was the original scientific name. Most things have a scientific name and a common name. Humans and Homo Sapiens for example. The standardized nomenclature for how to derive the common name of a virus is by its localized origin. Barring a specific place, or if one is already taken, then the original carrier if known. Then they are named after the host cell they inhabit. Last but not least the person who discovered it can give it the common name. Those are the typical naming rules for viruses. Since we know the localized area the virus comes from, Wuhan, and there isn't another virus named for that area yet then the proper naming convention for the common name is to call it by its point of origin. I have no problem calling it by SARS-CoV-2, but that is not a common name. Wuhan Flu or Wuhan Virus would be the common names going by nomenclature.
This is even more idiotic and is now a reconstruction of history. Before SARS-CoV-2 was officially named, it was universally called novel Coronavirus (nCoV) with or without 2019 in the title, including the the consortium that initially published the genetic sequence on January 10th, the WHO on January 11th, the CDC on January 17th, and the formation of the US Coronavirus Task Force on January 29th.

In fact, can you point to all of us, in the naming rules set forth by the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses that lists location must be used first for deriving a common name for a virus? WTF is a "common name" anyways? Please, show us a link that says as such from them.

Why is SARS-CoV-1 named that way? I don't see a single item about location in the name despite being identified 17 years ago.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY