Heh, I was trying to do research on coronaviruses (of which COVID-19 is one of many coronaviruses), but Google sanitized the result and only showed me "official" COVID-19 resources and buried the broader coronavirus resources.
In the context of "trying to do research on coronaviruses" your comment appears to be not only correct but an important distinction, rather than the pedantry it appears to be.
From Wikipedia: "...more lethal varieties [of coronaviruses] can cause SARS, MERS, and COVID-19."
And...
"Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 [SARS-CoV-2] is the strain of coronavirus..."
I learned something today!
To be honest, I was a bit disappointed when I found out, though I admit now it's a little refreshing to have be so simply named.
They changed the name of this coronavirus to reflect the disease more accurately to COVID-19.[1]
The CDC has a list of other coronavirus’ that have existed.[2]
0: https://twitter.com/DrTedros/status/1227297754499764230?s=20
0.5: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/faq.html
1: https://www.who.int/dg/speeches/detail/who-director-general-...
2: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/types.html
——
Edit: Since there seems to be a misunderstanding from everybody’s part on this as it’s referred to as both and often interchangeably in a mainstream setting, take a look at John Hopkins guide: https://www.hopkinsguides.com/hopkins/view/Johns_Hopkins_ABX...
From link [2]: "SARS-CoV-2 (the novel coronavirus that causes coronavirus disease 2019, or COVID-19)"
The previous comment was just making the point that the (new) virus is called SARS-CoV-2 and the associated disease is called COVID-19.
COVID-19: disease caused by SARS-CoV-2
SARS-CoV-2: strain of SARS-CoV
SARS-CoV: severe accute respiratory syndrome coronavirus
Coronavirus: virus that causes respiratory diseases in mammals, such as SARS (SARS-CoV) MERS (MERS-CoV), and COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2)
Excuse the incivility, but no. SARS-CoV-2 is not a strain or type of SARS-CoV. The viruses share ancestors, but SARS-CoV-2 did not come directly from SARS-CoV. SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 are in the category of beta coronaviruses[0].
"The whole genome-based phylogenetic analysis presented that two Bat SARS-like CoVs (ZXC21 and ZC45) were the closest relatives of SARS-CoV-2."[1]
[0] https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0817/9/3/240/htm
[1] https://www.mdpi.com/pathogens/pathogens-09-00240/article_de...
While we're on the topic of linguistic pedantary, strain isn't exclusive to direct mutations from a parent genome. Strains, like much of biological taxonomy, are a human abstraction to make communication of the idea of -- in this case -- "a virus sharing similar properties to coronaviruses that cause severe acute respiratory syndrome" -- albeit this is a very simplified definition for the sake of brevity.
SARS is caused by SARS-CoV-1 and COVID-19 is caused by SARS-CoV-2.
Rather, if we would like to be absolutely correct about these classifications, we would say SARS-CoV-1 and SARS-CoV-2 are both strains of SARSr-CoV (Severe accute respiratory syndrome related coronavirus), which in itself is a species, an abstract concept used to group related organisms into a convenient umbrella term.
There is no "eukaryote" organism the same way there is no "SARSr-CoV" organism. The added "r" was a recent addition when COVID-19 was discovered.
I will cede that I didn't specify this last point, and you were correct to point it out.
Thank you for making my point, again.
Genera -- as in SARS-CoV-2's genus is Betacoronovirus -- don't have "strains."
Only families -- such as the SARSr-CoV family -- have strains.
> SARS-CoV-2: strain of SARS-CoV
GP was pointing out that this was incorrect, and you just made that point by stating it yourself.
Assuming you are intending to engage in the conversation and not be a pedant, I might let you know that your replies are coming across quite coarsely. More specifically, as to prefaces on earlier comments, there is no need to excuse incivility, because there is no need for incivility here.
At least this did not fall into the category of "Cold regurgitation of data" (quite popular it seems) and had a level of warmth that was an indication of passion, more than anger (from all parties).
If they added a temperature social cue to HN comments..... That would be funny.
If these were names for services and classes that came in a code review, how many would really approve?
There was "rebranded" web search that someone created a number of years ago and posted on HN that aimed to exclude the top websites from results. I cannot remember the name he gave to the project.
One way to exclude the world's biggest websites when using Google is to restrict the search to TLDs other than .com, .net and .org. The root zone is full of silly new TLDs that no one uses for large websites. There are hundreds to choose from.
https://www.google.com/search?q=coronavirus+site:edu
Looks like Google Scholar is including a number of "coronavirus links" on the main page but thankfully not in the results.
https://scholar.google.com/search?q=coronavirus
Why not skip Google and "web search" and use a database that does not include all the crap one finds on the www
Something like
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov?term=coronavirus
or