I'm not a heart doctor. Here's why I am not wary of the Apple Watch: 1. At a societal level, perhaps false positives during screening put undue load on the me

I'm not a heart doctor. Here's why I am not wary of the Apple Watch: 1. At a societal level, perhaps false positives during screening put undue load on the medical system. But as an individual, it makes sense for me to screen for anything that does not take too high of an effort. If there is a false positive, it will be snuffed out in the next test. 2. Here is a little thought experiment. Lets say the false positive rate is 1%, and you screen 100 people. Then, your total number of tests including repeated tests on false positive subjects will be ~101 on average (the chance of 2 or more false positives is low enough to ignore). As long as the screening itself is not too much of an effort, then in fact false positives don't add that much load to the system. So, we should be seeking additional methods for widespread screening rather than worrying about false positive rates. --- I also find the doctors assumption of 10% false positive rates to be a little self serving in his argument. 1 in 10 people with an apple watch are going to be have atrial fibrillation detection? Doubt it.