Flu Nomenclature
Is it possible that the push to rename "swine flu" the "2009 H1N1 flu virus" hasn't penetrated the federal bureaucracy not because said bureaucracy is poky, but because the latter name is stupid and jargony?
COMMENTS
Post a Comment
By using this Service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although GovExec does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.
ABOUT THIS BLOG
Government Executive Editor in Chief Tom Shoop, along with other editors and staff correspondents, take a fresh look at news affecting the management and operations of the federal bureaucracy.
Nope that's not the reason BO just wants to be able to say he solved another problem and the swine flu is now gone. Kinda of like all combat forces out of Iraq
dan m ketter Posted Wednesday, April 29, 2009 5:09 PMWe shouldn't call it Swine Flu for the simple reason that it isn't. No pigs are sick with this flu. It is Human Influenza. North American Influenza virus. Nothing more interesting than that. Humans die every year because of human flu. This is just another one. Maybe it has bits of swine flu and bird flu genetic components but they all do to some extent. It's a pathetic example of scientific ignorance being used to make the news seem interesting.
duncan rowe Posted Thursday, April 30, 2009 5:41 AMRight on Ducan.
Does anyone remember the Swine Flu of 1976 that was supposedly more deadly than this one? No? Why not? Because it isn't worth remembering.
CBS did their usual Chicken Little routine back then too, followed by the rest of the media, and to what end?
Bud Posted Thursday, April 30, 2009 12:11 PM