Why is it unfortunate? The article didn't seem to say whether this change was good or bad, although I would assume a decrease in inflammation would be good?
I'd be careful with that assumption. Context means everything. It depends on what caused the inflammation, and what is causing its decrease.
> Economic development, improved standards of living and sanitation, decreased chronic infections from war injuries, improved dental hygiene, the waning of tuberculosis and malaria infections, and the dawn of the antibiotic age together are likely to have decreased chronic inflammation since the 19th century. For example, in the mid-19th century, 2–3% of the population would have been living with active tuberculosis (Tiemersma et al., 2011). This figure is consistent with the UAVCW Surgeons' Certificates that reported 737 cases of active tuberculosis among 23,757 subjects (3.1%). That UAVCW veterans who reported either current tuberculosis or pneumonia had a higher temperature (0.19°C and 0.03°C respectively) than those without infectious conditions supports this theory.
I would assume that less tuberculosis is a good thing (though, this being Hacker News, someone will probably show up to question that assumption too).
Tuberculosis is a disease, and widely accepted as detrimental to human health. I agree, less tuberculosis = a good thing.
This being a medically related post, more information, and less assumptions is better for everyone. Thank you for adding context.