Coronavirus and Corona Beer

Last Tuesday, the GoogleTrends Twitter account noted that worldwide search interest for "coronavirus symptoms” increased by 1,050% compared to the week before. It also listed the top five related searches during the previous 24 hours, which included things like "how to prevent coronavirus" and "how does coronavirus spread."

But another popular Google search illustrates that we're also surrounded by very, very confused people.

There has also been a spike in searches for "corona beer virus," because apparently people are under the impression that coronavirus, also known as nCoV, has something to do with Corona brand beer. The searches have been prevalent in North America (but not in Mexico, where the beer is produced) and western Europe as well as in Australia, India, Indonesia, Japan, and New Zealand.

It's disappointing that this needs to be written, but the only thing that Corona beer and nCoV have in common is the origin of their names. In Latin, corōna meant 'crown,' and modern languages continue to reflect that; 'corona' still translates to crown in modern Catalan, Spanish, and Italian, among others.

Coronaviruses were named because of the crown-like spikes on its surface, and anyone who has ever peeled the label off a bottle of Corona Light has noticed the crown that sits on top of its "La Cerveza Mas Fina" slogan. The drinkable Corona predates the virus, though: Corona was first brewed in 1925, while human coronaviruses were not identified until 1965.

From Vice News (edited)

Mexico's presidential plane (audio)

You can also listen to this audio file by clicking on the Play Button

Amtrack apolizes for its mistake (audio)

You can also listen to this audio file by clicking on the Play Button

Is Queen Elizabeth similar to Alex Ferguson?

The parallels between  a royal family and a football team are not exact—footballers tend to be more disciplined and better trained than royals—but monarchs and football managers are both in charge of small groups of unusual individuals who are constantly in the public eye. Missteps by one mean disaster for all. So it is not surprising that similarities are emerging between the Queen and English football’s most successful manager, Manchester United’s Sir Alex Ferguson.

Both royal and football teams have to be refreshed to keep the fans happy, and Ferguson and Windsor have both shown this ability. But new hires do not always work out, and great managers have to be willing to sacrifice talented individuals in the interests of the team. Just as Ferguson sacked Beckham when his ego and his endorsements got in the way of his football, so the Queen has dealt ruthlessly with Harry and Meghan. They wanted to be able to stay half in the family, doing some royal work while exploiting their titles for their private interest; and, as the most popular of the royals, they might reasonably have expected Windsor to give in to their demands. Instead, they have been put on the transfer list, and will lose their royal titles. Like Beckham, they will be relegated to North America.

Although Windsor, with 68 years in the job, has surpassed Ferguson, his 27 in post made him the longest-serving manager at the top of British football. Windsor has taken the title of Britain’s longest reigning monarch of all time. Their organisations have benefited from the degree of stability both managers’ long reigns have conferred. 

Monarchies, like football clubs, outlive their incumbents. Since Ferguson stepped down, United has struggled. Manager after manager has failed in his shadow. Windsor’s many fans must hope the similarities do not extend that far.

From The Economist (edited)