There are worries that monkeypox is a racist and/or misleading name. Before August 2023, will the BBC.com or NPR.org refer to monkeypox primarily by another name in their front page articles? "Foopox, also known as monkeypox" would count.
Aug 2, 11:41am:
Aug 7, 4:09pm: If a site uses "the Monkeypox virus (MPV)" and then uses MPV elsewhere, including the headline, this would not be sufficient for resolution; "MPV, also known as Monkeypox" would count for a YES resolution.
Related questions
🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ810 | |
| 2 | Ṁ459 | |
| 3 | Ṁ241 | |
| 4 | Ṁ151 | |
| 5 | Ṁ107 |
@Predictor I do see this on their front page, and it only uses monkeypox as a term twice, once to define mpox and once in a quote. This resolves YES.
Racist towards monkeys?
The R0 is 0.0001 per male sex partner—even bonbobs aren’t promiscuous enough to catch this. And it basically went away when the “festivals” stopped.
@TomShlomi The description says this isn't enough to resolve. They have to start using mpox as the primary name.
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2022/11/28/1139403803/who-renames-monkeypox-as-mpox-citing-racist-stigma
NPR seems to still call it monkeypox; the only occurrences of 'mpox' in the article are in reference to the plan to rename it.
https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/who-use-mpox-monkeypox-2022-11-28/
>The World Health Organization said on Monday it will start using a new preferred term, mpox, as a synonym for the monkeypox disease
The World Health Organization is planning to rename monkeypox, designating it as “MPOX” in an effort to destigmatize the virus that gained a foothold in the U.S. earlier this year, three people with knowledge of the matter told POLITICO.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/11/22/who-monkeypox-mpox-rename-00070614
You guys, I think Monkeypox is Monkeypox at this point. https://www.npr.org/2022/09/29/1119561088/monkeypox-climate-change-zoonotic-diseases
It's not what this question is about, but still interesting: https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/3601955-who-renames-two-monkeypox-variants-to-avoid-geographic-references/
@Duncan How about if there's a switch to "MPV" so thorough and complete that using the word "monkeypox" becomes as much of a faux-pas as calling Covid the "Wuhan Flu"?
@MichaelWheatley I'm leaning toward the criteria that MPV counts as long as they don't feel the need to clarify what it means.
I feel that if every website refer to monkeypox as "MPV, also known as Monkeypox", then it should resolve YES as per the market description. The market's question is about whether we'll change the denomination, and I think the groups that are trying to rename it for race-related reasons or otherwise would be satisfied if everyone used MPV
@JoyVoid I'm not sure if they would be satisfied if it was clarified that the M stands for Monkey. However, the market description didn't require that anyone be satisfied (e.g., NPR calling it "the Africa Pox would clearly be a YES result), so that may be a distraction.
My intuition is that "The Monkeypox virus (MPV)" and then using MPV elsewhere, including the headline, is not a renaming, it's just space-saving. But, "MPV, also known as Monkeypox" *is* an attempt at renaming. However, if this type of thing happens it's not necessarily going to happen in such a clear manner, and resolution could be muddy.
However, I would be happy to add that criteria to the market resolution, to at least clarify where I'm coming from.
@Duncan Right. I also don't feel that Monkeypox virus (MPV)" would be a YES, because it feels more like an abbreviation. But if they're presented as two different names, like in "MPV, also known as Monkeypox" I feel this should be a YES since it's using a different name.
Sorry I wasn't clear, I was referring to ""Foopox, also known as monkeypox" would count." when I mentioned the market's resolution criteria.
Related questions
