Most disorders/diseases are too complex to have a short name that accuratley describes what they are so I don't think a disorder being 'poorly' named is that big of a deal.

[–] silasmariner@programming.dev 15 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

At least come up with a fancy word for it like Wombleypoos or something

[–] VaalaVasaVarde@sopuli.xyz 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And add colours and levels for extra flavour.

They are diagnosed with Green Level 3 Wombleypoos, just keep them away from the level 2's to avoid the floop scenario!

[–] silasmariner@programming.dev 5 points 1 year ago

Most of my mates are some flavour, colour and level of Wombleypoo, but tbqh I've never considered whether - like star signs - there may be incompatibilities there

[–] grrgyle@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 year ago

Oh I think I had that after gelatin fest from the old country

[–] jawa21@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah, this is why I am a fan of naming them after patient zero, or the first to diagnose etc.

[–] fristislurper@feddit.nl 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The WHO discourages this because people will start associating the name with the disease. Which sucks if you happen to have this name. See Tourette's, or Chagas disease.

You can read a bit about it here.

[–] anton@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 2 months ago

We should name diseases after members of uncontactable tribes. We just need to ask them for their names and ... shit.