Fair pushback. Although I think you are being somewhat too dismissive.
PCPs are trained to diagnose (and certainly indicate/suspect) both rare and common diseases.
The distinction between uncommon and rare is subjective. There is not an official tier system that graduates from “common” to “uncommon” to “rare”, etc. I used the word “uncommon” as a synonym for rare—“uncommon” doesn’t typically appear in literature. I can appreciate this downplays it somewhat. However, the term “rare”, I would argue, exaggerates rarity for the more common members of that category. I don’t think that pointing out a word choice that commits a connotational but not a factual error is a valid basis to dismiss the whole thing.
Fair pushback. Although I think you are being somewhat too dismissive.
PCPs are trained to diagnose (and certainly indicate/suspect) both rare and common diseases.
The distinction between uncommon and rare is subjective. There is not an official tier system that graduates from “common” to “uncommon” to “rare”, etc. I used the word “uncommon” as a synonym for rare—“uncommon” doesn’t typically appear in literature. I can appreciate this downplays it somewhat. However, the term “rare”, I would argue, exaggerates rarity for the more common members of that category. I don’t think that pointing out a word choice that commits a connotational but not a factual error is a valid basis to dismiss the whole thing.