[mediaman]

Since you're feeling judgmental ("How can you utterly fail to see a problem..."), let's take it the other extreme.

Suppose a device is released that has a 30% false positive rate: two-thirds of the people it identifies have an actual underlying condition that requires treatment.

Presumably you would not be opposed to this. (If you do, you'd seem to be opposed to any effort to catch conditions early.)

So then we're at a discussion about what the correct percentage of false positives is for a further diagnostic - in this case, likely a holter monitor, to identify if it's an actual issue, which is not that expensive.

You believe it's obvious that ten percent is an outrageous number. But if the next step is a fairly inexpensive diagnostic, and the subject matter is a potentially lethal condition (often the case with hearts), it's not obvious at all.

What's your acceptable "brightline" of maximum false positivity to warrant additional diagnostic? Fifty percent? Twenty percent?