In game theory and probability, it is almost always considered better to have data about something so that you can act appropriately. (I admit there are some theoretical exceptions, but I don't think they apply here). Even if you are healthy and young, it's better to hold your own data than not.
Sometimes, thanks to technology, we don't know who has access to our data and whether this is going to be used against us: for example, will we have an impossibly high insurance premium attached to us for life - with the data in our hands, we lose the right to use insurance to even out that risk.
Sometimes, in medicine, there are ethical considerations, that the eventual treatment for a screened condition presents its own risk that people may not wish to decide and the healthcare system might not be well-equipped to manage.
Nonetheless, I still personally prefer to have the data than not. I want to decide my own healthcare needs based on my own knowledge and understanding of my own risks. This is "data driven".
Sometimes, thanks to technology, we don't know who has access to our data and whether this is going to be used against us: for example, will we have an impossibly high insurance premium attached to us for life - with the data in our hands, we lose the right to use insurance to even out that risk.
Sometimes, in medicine, there are ethical considerations, that the eventual treatment for a screened condition presents its own risk that people may not wish to decide and the healthcare system might not be well-equipped to manage.
Nonetheless, I still personally prefer to have the data than not. I want to decide my own healthcare needs based on my own knowledge and understanding of my own risks. This is "data driven".