>Notice that at 0.02% prevalence the two conditional probabilities differ by 97% but at 20% prevalence the difference is only 3%. Therefore, the Prosecutor’s Fa

>Notice that at 0.02% prevalence the two conditional probabilities differ by 97% but at 20% prevalence the difference is only 3%. Therefore, the Prosecutor’s Fallacy is not an issue when the prevalence (or prior likelihood of guilt) is high, because the conditional probabilities are similar. Whoa I think the point makes sense but I'm not sure about the data used to demonstrate it. The difference between probabilities at 20% prevalence were 1% and 4%. That's not a 3% difference, that's a 3 percentage point difference that results in a 400% difference in probability. That's not similar at all.