> give everyone the "always return positive" test, I had assumed your comment was sarcastic. Note that if you believe prevalence is 95%, there is no reason to

> give everyone the "always return positive" test, I had assumed your comment was sarcastic. Note that if you believe prevalence is 95%, there is no reason to spend any resources on dogs, tests, or even vaccines. Making all that effort only makes sense in a world where prevalence is assumed to be low and the effort is to keep it low. So, let's say prevalence is 5%. Then, you method has a false positive rate of 95%. Are you OK with the implications of that?