Sudden acute respiratory syndrome, SARS, as it was very simply called back then, began sometime in 2002. The name of the illness caused by the virus was taken from the symptoms of the illness.
When viruses are named after geographic locations and/or other species, the public’s perception of the disease can be warped in an undesirable manner. For instance, a flu outbreak in 2009 was called “Mexican Swine Flu,” which was prejudicial and named based on false premises.
SARS was found to be a “unique coronavirus only distantly related to previously sequenced coronaviruses” in an early reference to the virus in this May 2003 paper. By October 2003, the CDC called it “a previously unknown coronavirus, SARS-associated coronavirus (SARS-CoV)“. SARS-Coronavirus or SARS-CoV for short, is what has been known as since.
It makes sense not to name the newest coronavirus as “Chinese Bat Virus” or similar. That early on, who would know for sure if the disease came from China or bats? And in any case you would not want to associate a race of humans with an animal.
The World Health Organization chose the name COVID-19 for another version of a coronavirus which caused sudden acute respiratory system. Here are the remarks from a speech of the Director General of the WHO on February 11, 2002: “Now to coronavirus. First of all, we now have a name for the disease: COVID-19. I’ll spell it: C-O-V-I-D hyphen one nine – COVID-19. Under agreed guidelines between WHO, the World Organisation for Animal Health and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, we had to find a name that did not refer to a geographical location, an animal, an individual or group of people, and which is also pronounceable and related to the disease. Having a name matters to prevent the use of other names that can be inaccurate or stigmatizing. It also gives us a standard format to use for any future coronavirus outbreaks.”
The WHO was right not to use a stigmatizing name. They were wrong to name it “COVID-19.” “COVID” is CO (corona) VI (virus) D (disease). The public didn’t know the virus was another version of a pandemic they had already experienced. Most people still aren’t. The mentality of the public would have been much different if the WHO had trotted out that day and said this virus is SARS-2, a similar virus to SARS in 2002. People would start asking questions like, “what worked to cure it last time?” This way, the WHO can shield the pharmaceutical chemicals they represent from exposure to the knowledge that simple plant leafs work as well or better than anything that the pharmaceutical companies can create at a later date.
There were studies done in China, published in 2005, about natural herbal cures that worked on SARS. Artemisia annua, one that I champion on here, was one of them. Chloraquine was found to work as well in 2005. You may remember the controversy when President Trump took hydroxychloraquine, a derivative of chloraquine.
It’s my opinion that either artemisia annua, or derivatives of cinchona bark either one would have saved lives in this pandemic. Artemisia annua is strongly preferable because it is much safer.
Quinine was “it” for pandemics back in the day, before China’s study on artemisia annua in 1968. There was no evidence that quinine cured the “Spanish flu” back in 1918 when this line was formed, but the public knew the drill.