https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mononegavirales#Order_organiza...
Informally that number is way higher.
It's as common to use the original geographical source of the virus in the name as it is to use some chemistry/biology/latin driven name or in your case an acronym.
Following formal guidelines in scientific papers and other formal discourse is another matter. Newspapers, social media, interpersonal communication, etc isn't a big deal IMO. People know what they are referring to. That's all that matters in that sort of language, humans are smart enough to figure out context and intention. Especially since there's nothing inherently 'wrong' with using relevant identifiers like geography.
Trying to constantly redefine and re-purpose certain words/phrases in absolute terms is an arbitrary and endless fight against the reality of everyday language. It's ultimately a giant waste of time that only adds more personal/political/ideological baggage than it removes, to what common-sense was already more than sufficient to handle. It's also just as often used to 'spin' and attack people and purposefully misinterpret people's intentions and context of usage, despite it being obvious to the rational reader, as it is about 'protecting' others. It then makes us question your intentions in 'correcting' them as much as theirs in using it, and we're no better off in terms of clarity. The less of it, the better.
https://thegrayzone.com/2019/12/21/china-detaining-millions-...
Imagine if the Chinese army could materialize new media realities.
One can object to a use of language that is likely to stir racist sentiment against Chinese people, and more broadly Asian people (as we very much have seen especially early in the outbreak), without implying support for the CCP.