This entire argument of it being "madness" hinges on the fact that a rational actor will know they are part of a low risk demographic and while they might worry

This entire argument of it being "madness" hinges on the fact that a rational actor will know they are part of a low risk demographic and while they might worry, they won't seek medical care when they are informed they are low risk and "it's probably nothing". This is not a reasonable assumption. I'm not sure if the author has ever had a biopsy, but most people will seek out care if they get some concerning result, like a nodule on the lungs that's "probably benign because of your priors." Maybe you could opt in to "I am fully rational and will only make decisions using bayesian statistics with accurate priors." Maybe you could hide test results or generate false results based on probabilities as not to steer someone into an unnecessary procedure. (Yes this it tongue in cheek) Those who really really want to do that next test because they want the information are free to do that. But it seems like the exact mentality that will make you more prone to a botched biopsy. If you keep following the trail of more information you will get to a test that may not be best for your health outcome. That may be the initial x-ray. It seems that if you have not-fully-rational human beings and an obligation to truthfully inform them of the results of medical tests, then maybe not doing the test to begin with has significantly better health outcomes. Can you not chain bayesian probabilities?