4 ms·

How can this possibly be America's largest TB outbreak in history? TB was killing thousands of people per year in America in the 1800s.

PhoenixReborn 2y ago
The crucial word in the headline is "recorded". I doubt that record-keeping in the 1800s was as comprehensive as it is today. Additionally, from the article: > the CDC started monitoring TB in the US in the 1950s.
- lolinder 2y ago
  Eh, "recorded history" is totally the wrong phrase. When we say "recorded history" we don't mean "the window of time in which we have detailed records up to our modern standards", we specifically mean "the window of time in which we have records of any sort", contrasted with "prehistory". The phrase they were looking for is "largest on record" or even better "largest since 195X". > For broader world history, recorded history begins with the accounts of the ancient world around the 4th millennium BCE, and it coincides with the invention of writing. EDIT: Downvote away, but I'd be interested to hear from someone who believes that "recorded history" is not incorrect and confusing usage here, with an explanation rather than a drive by vote. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recorded_history https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recorded_history
  - hedora 2y ago
    Largest in CDC records. US government records existed before 1950.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - loeg 2y ago
      Sure, but that isn't what the headline says.
  - loeg 2y ago
    No I agree with you, the 1800s were part of recorded history.
thrance 2y ago
The article states that they only started recording in the 1950s.
ceejayoz 2y ago
> She noted that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention started monitoring and reporting tuberculosis cases in the U.S. in the 1950s.
- declan_roberts 2y ago
  But surely our disease experts know about the past outbreaks and their impact and wouldn't say something patently untrue like the headline.
  - lanternfish 2y ago
    "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.
    - wyldfire 2y ago
      "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"?
      - lanternfish 2y ago
        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.
  - dang 2y ago
    They don't write the headlines.
- 2y ago
DFHippie 2y ago
If you read the article, it appears they've only been keeping records in Kansas since the 50's. And I think the headline is wrong: it's the biggest in Kansas's records. I could be mistaken about that.

PhoenixReborn 2y ago

The crucial word in the headline is "recorded". I doubt that record-keeping in the 1800s was as comprehensive as it is today. Additionally, from the article: > the CDC started monitoring TB in the US in the 1950s.

lolinder 2y ago
Eh, "recorded history" is totally the wrong phrase. When we say "recorded history" we don't mean "the window of time in which we have detailed records up to our modern standards", we specifically mean "the window of time in which we have records of any sort", contrasted with "prehistory". The phrase they were looking for is "largest on record" or even better "largest since 195X". > For broader world history, recorded history begins with the accounts of the ancient world around the 4th millennium BCE, and it coincides with the invention of writing. EDIT: Downvote away, but I'd be interested to hear from someone who believes that "recorded history" is not incorrect and confusing usage here, with an explanation rather than a drive by vote. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recorded_history https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recorded_history
- hedora 2y ago
  Largest in CDC records. US government records existed before 1950.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - loeg 2y ago
    Sure, but that isn't what the headline says.
- loeg 2y ago
  No I agree with you, the 1800s were part of recorded history.

thrance 2y ago

The article states that they only started recording in the 1950s.

ceejayoz 2y ago

> She noted that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention started monitoring and reporting tuberculosis cases in the U.S. in the 1950s.

declan_roberts 2y ago
But surely our disease experts know about the past outbreaks and their impact and wouldn't say something patently untrue like the headline.
- lanternfish 2y ago
  "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.
  - wyldfire 2y ago
    "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"?
    - lanternfish 2y ago
      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.
- dang 2y ago
  They don't write the headlines.
2y ago

DFHippie 2y ago

If you read the article, it appears they've only been keeping records in Kansas since the 50's. And I think the headline is wrong: it's the biggest in Kansas's records. I could be mistaken about that.