[COVIDisntCORONA]

Excuse the incivility, but no.

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)

[tacon]

>SARS-CoV-2: strain of SARS-CoV

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...

[COVIDisntCORONA]

Excuse the incivility once again, but no.

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.

[egberts1]

Wow. A civil exchange on proper use of terms by two disparate but related technological domain experts. It’ll go on forever.

[tacon]

>we would say SARS-CoV-1 and SARS-CoV-2 are both strains of SARSr-CoV

Thank you for making my point, again.

[COVIDisntCORONA]

I don't believe I did.

Genera -- as in SARS-CoV-2's genus is Betacoronovirus -- don't have "strains."

Only families -- such as the SARSr-CoV family -- have strains.

[nulbyte]

To GP's point, your initial reply said:

> 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.

[aSplash0fDerp]

I found the exchange to be more than civil, with pleasantries not being taken in the literal sense.

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.

[ArnoVW]

I'll add that the family of viruses is called Corona virus because they are 'crown shaped'

[amelius]

Kind of strange that the name of the virus contains the symptoms of the disease (SARS = severe accute respiratory syndrome) while the disease doesn't.