Hacker News Reader

But surely our disease experts know about the past outbreaks and their impact and wouldn't say something patently untrue like the headline.

View on HN

"Recorded history" in the title refers to the period of history where the agency has been recording the numbers. It might not be the best phrasing, but it's not strictly untrue; the underwritten thesis (TB is on the rise) is still supported by the evidence.

"recorded history" sounds like it's how you divide pre-colonial Americas from modern (15th Century CE onward) Americas. For example, many weather features have been recorded in the Americas since 17th century CE. Does "recorded history" refer to only "[this particular metric's] recorded history"?

I agree that it's not the best term, but I don't think its so disqualifying that it makes the claim untrue: it's misleading at worst, and that imprecision only kinda interacts with the underlying claim.

I guess the better phrasing would be "Kansas tuberculosis outbreak is largest since (org) has been collecting data", which honestly doesn't change the implications for me.

They don't write the headlines.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com