Replies to post #129097 on Biotech Values

[TastyTheElf]

You are attempting to justify your answer by stating 1 percent incidence is silly.

Go back and read the answer. I gave two perspectives, one assuming that 1% testing wasn't relevant given the way it was described, and one that presumed that it was, the oddity of using such a test notwithstanding. Are you saying that having a diagnostic test that had a 30% false positive rate when the chance of a true positive was 1% isn't bizarre? Who would take that test? Of what use would it be?

But I agree with you, this isn't useful any more. The underlying point is valid. I think I acknowledged that awhile back.

This really does remind me of the Let's Make a Deal problem. When that "genius" (Some woman whose last name was Vos Savant, I believe) came out with it, I remember having screaming matches with people over it. They couldn't understand that it mattered whether Monty Hall knew in advance where the winning door was.