https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronavirus_disease_2019:
"Common symptoms include fever, cough, fatigue, shortness of breath, and loss of smell and taste.[6][7][13] While the majority of cases result in mild symptoms, some progress to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) likely precipitated by a cytokine storm,[14] multi-organ failure, septic shock, and blood clots."
The name of the disease comes from the similarity of the virus to another one that caused a respiratory illness. And from it initially seeming to be mainly a respiratory illness as well. Now more data has come in, and it looks to medical professionals like it's not purely respiratory. Looks like science in action to me.
No. That's so false it's shocking. The name of the virus comes from the fact that it is genetically a corona virus. There are 7 known corona viruses that affect humans and every single one of them are respiratory.
What ever data 'sources' you're reading are wrong.
Looks like I need to start quoting your posts since they tend to get flagged into oblivion.
> The name of the virus comes from the fact that it is genetically a corona virus.
This is a weird claim, since in the post above you specifically pointed out that its name contains "Severe Acute RESPIRATORY Syndrome", which yes, is a hint that it was thought to be respiratory. But four other human coronaviruses don't have "respiratory" in their name. It's not like coronaviruses automatically get that name.
> There are 7 known corona viruses that affect humans and every single one of them are respiratory.
This is true, but I don't think that means that they are "not allowed" to have symptoms that are outside the lungs. The table in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronavirus#Infection_in_human... lists diarrhea as a fairly frequent symptom of MERS (26%) and SARS-1 (20-25%). As a molecular biologist you will know more about this than I do, but it looks to me like these respiratory viruses can affect different parts of the body. That is also how it looks to medical professionals in the field, as discussed in the featured article.
> What ever data 'sources' you're reading are wrong.
You had plenty of opportunities in this thread to post your own sources. I think the only time you even referred to a source was to the Wikipedia page which I quoted back at you, which made you sad.
It's very frustrating to read strong views without the views being substantiated. I know it's unrealistic to ask everyone commenting in such threads to prefix their commentary with "IAD" or "IANAD" (I am a medical doctor or I am not a medical doctor) but without such "qualifications" people like me (not a doctor) are left with little to go by.
When talking about viruses, it's a little more complicated than a label. Viruses naturally differentiate in a measurable way from host to host as part of their function (hijacking the host's cells). Scientifically, viruses are lumped into common behavior and generic similarities. Many individual variations do not propagate enough to be noticed, but some do. There was quite a bit of talk from some people about the 112 strains of coronavirus, which was not constructive, but technically correct (re: https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/is-there-more-than...? etc) awhile back.
