Replies to post #128964 on Biotech Values

[iwfal]

The example started being one where we presumed the dude had the disease, where that consideration wouldn't even arise

I'll concede in the earlier iterations I was less clear that "diagnosis" was solely via a test - although an argument can be made that talking about False Positive implies that the diagnosis is short of an infallible indication of 'the dude had the disease'.

I actually gave you the correct answer, which was more or less the same one Dew did (except I forgot to add a the numerator to the denominator). I don't understand why you chose to focus on the first part of my answer (which excluded the testing issue) rather than the second part, which actually incorporated your point.

You gave two mutually incompatible answers - and didn't provide an explanation of which one you thought more valid. I agree the second one was conceptually correct (albeit with an oops) and had already commented on that in the thread to Dew. As for the reason the response was to Dew's was because I didn't even see your correct response until later because it was down at the bottom of your post.

Note: I am interested in how you reconcile having two mutually incompatible answers?