Sorry for the nitpick but virii is neither in Latin nor English a plural of virus. The Latin would be vira the English viruses. There are a couple of common variants floating around that probably originate from misunderstanding Latin.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plural_form_of_words_ending_...
I had actual Latin on a license plate frame on a sports car that roughly translated to "eat my dust/shit/detritus." I can't remember the exact tenses of the words, but it took me a while to get it right.
And if we don't stop to smell the roses, how will we remember how good roses smell?
So let's not defenestrate curiosity wherever it leads with the culture of "no," because you're not a moderator. So don't pretend to be the king who decides what is permitted and forbidden to be discussed; that's contrary to an open and free society.
There's nothing wrong with "viruses" or "octopuses." Please read and understand that "faux Latin" means these tweaked "smarty" words aren't even Latin half of the time.
While I may agree with the grammatical merits [1)] I'm not convinced (yet). The second argument [2)] that it's never had a historical plural doesn't hold up. The field of virology is much more recent so the need for a plural 'virus' didn't exist at the time.
And 3) is literally how words are formed. If a term used frequently enough it eventually becomes a word regardless of the original grammatical correctness. The term even has 175 years of precedent.[2] As cactus has the plural cacti it's non-obvious why the same doesn't hold true for virus.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plural_form_of_words_ending_in... [2] https://archive.org/details/homopathictreati00test/page/48/m...