• siperjff@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 months ago

    The “good” thing about it killing rapidly is there is less chance of it spreading. So I would not expect another global pandemic from it.

    Although the bad thing is still that if you do get it, your chances of survival aren’t good…

    • Zron@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      4 months ago

      God, I hope it doesn’t spread, because then people will keep saying global pandemic.

      Pandemic already means global.

      It’s like saying Mariachi Band, or ATM Machine.

      • bruce965@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        4 months ago

        For what it’s worth, I always prefer being redundant if it makes the meaning clearer to a non-native speaker audience.

        For instance I didn’t know “pandemic” implicitly meant “global”. In my ignorance I thought you could have a localized pandemic. But by saying “global pandemic” it makes it more obvious to everyone, including those who, like me, didn’t know.

        Also I’ll personally keep saying “my phone had an LCD display” because it feels smoother than “my phone has a LCD”.

      • explore_broaden@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        (of a disease) existing in almost all of an area or in almost all of a group of people, animals, or plants

        “An area” could be a country, a Canadian pandemic is possible just as a global pandemic is.