>A test needs to be materially more accurate than the odds of having the disease to be worth anything. Shouldn't it just need to be better than 50/50? >Classi

>A test needs to be materially more accurate than the odds of having the disease to be worth anything. Shouldn't it just need to be better than 50/50? >Classic thought experiment: if 0.0001% of the population has a disease and a test is 99% effective and you test positive, what are the odds you have the disease? Answer: 1%. My odds still changed dramatically and the cost of a false positive is just me hanging out at home and not visiting my parents. I'm not getting a biopsy or taking expensive medicene.