Do you think that would also be the case here?
Weekly symptoms of infection doesn't sound particularly appealing to me.

www.newscientist.com/article/2492...

There is currently no approved vaccine for scarlet fever.

It appears my error was in devoting decades to virology rather than mastering Victorian literature and kitchen remedies. A humbling revelation—thank you for your service to science.

I don't think you're capable of a reasonable discussion.
Bye!!!

Read what I wrote.

And why do you need a 2000 year timeline to make your point?

Is it because a shorter timeline would show child mortality dropping precipitously prior to mass vaccination?

It's not anti-vax to expect more honesty and clarity in public health messaging.

I'm sorry to have to say it, but if this is meant to persuade vaccine skeptics, I think it's disingenuous and probably counterproductive.

Why are you conflating water systems with vaccines?

Who's against clean water?

What starts as a critique of healthcare policy becomes an argument for a new moral regime in which science is moralised, and politics is medicalised.

Scottish-American. 😉

Interest in non-primate lentiviruses also seems to be declining.
This may impact efforts to manage the diseases caused by these viruses.

OK. Not sure how this is relevant but fine.

I wouldn't say it reflects infection rate.
Otherwise there might be a million Torquetenovirus publications a year.
It is reflective of global impact, but reaction was part of the impact.

It also emphasises the need for a more equitable and sustained approach to addressing all major viral threats, not just those that capture immediate global attention.

To me, this massive publication disparity illustrates how research priorities are shaped by societal and economic factors rather than inherent scientific value.

I think it shows the reactive nature of scientific funding and research focus, which seem to be tied to immediate perceived crises.

Oh come along Professor Simmonds, now you're just being mean. 😉

The tree I posted was not intended to suggest that Latin binomials are replacing common names but to show in context the contrast between using the traditional names versus the binomials.

The application of rank-based scientific classification and Latin binomials to virus species is distinct, but obviously it impacts how how viruses are referred to - which is presumably what has made it controversial.