Earlier quoted context omitted.
I had a good friend over for dinner recently, and learned that he had recently suffered a heart attack. Not a really bad one, but there aren't exactly 'good' ones either. Pretty scary, as he's still in his 30ies, like me, in good health, no smoking, not much drinking, some exercise, eats ok, and so on.
still in his 30ies, like me, in good health, no smoking, not much drinking, some exercise, eats ok, and so on. This is the problem. In the absence of proper diagnostics, people look at popularly touted risk factors like age, alcohol/smoking/drugs, exercise, diet, etc. But these are highly generalised factors that don't take into account: genetic/congenital/epigenetic conditions, stress/emotional issues, environmental…
Let's say you sequence everyone's genome and can do it for $0 per person. Even if you could, having a genome sequence gets you only so far. We don't know what many genes do; even less so do we know what changes in their structure or in their regulatory elements may do. We have useful, powerful ideas coming from evolutionary biology, but these won't be enough to let one feel confident about health claims.
And this says nothing about infectious, environmental, and behavioral components to risk.
[1] = I know that the fusion "20 years away and always will be" actually refers to the fact that if insufficiently funded it will always be 20 years away. But most people don't know that part of the reference, so I will ignore it at will.