[uwuhn]

>It's not adding a degree of separation between name and knowledge, no. It's removing unnecessary and also potentially-damaging information from the name of a pathogen

How is this not just adding a degree of separation between the name and knowledge of the "unnecessary and also potentially-damaging" information?

That's...exactly what it is. You have to perform one more step to reach the information. It's not "removed" because you can still access it. That's what an additional degree of separation means.

>Why are you not advocating for a name like SARS-CoV-2, which contains more information and is more accurate?

I don't care about the name at all, and you are making huge assumptions here. I would even argue that having SARS in the name is problematic due to its prior association with a specific region in the general public's mind. I'm surprised you didn't consider that before me.

[lovehashbrowns]

It's adding a degree of separation in the same way that saying water instead of dihydrogen monoxide adds a degree of separation between the name and knowledge of chemistry.

So you're saying that information is being removed but SARS has connotations with a specific region in the general public's name? Ok.

[uwuhn]

>It's adding a degree of separation in the same way that saying water instead of dihydrogen monoxide adds a degree of separation between the name and knowledge of chemistry.

The degree of separation in our discussion has to do with adding an additional step to knowing the origin of a virus. What would the intent behind your example be?

You're the only one saying "removed" here. Removal and abstraction/adding an extra degree of separation are not the same thing. Removal means you can't access the information at all, no matter how many additional steps you take. If removal is what you have had in mind all along, that goes back to where I was going with my original question, and your response here provides me with a definite answer. Thank you :)