I spend 10000x more time and effort monitoring the health and performance indicators of my servers compared to my body, it's astoundingly ignorant that we aren't more honed in on early detection for all sorts of issues.
False positives in the case of server monitoring are extremely rare and easy to detect when they do happen.
Can you imagine if your server monitoring runs once per minute and randomly fails 1/100 times? You'd be getting panic-inducing server is down emails many times per day. Such server monitoring would produce little to no value as you'd quickly ignore them as noise, just like you should avoid doing more tests like this on your body.
Additionally, CTs in particular produce ionizing radiation and increase your risk of cancer. If monitoring your server increased the risk of it failing, would you still want monitoring on it?
The health and performance indicators of your servers are reliable and (relatively) accurate. Analogous indicators for the human body are much less so. False positive and false negative rates for many different kinds of tests/exams are uncomfortably high. In cases where patients have other signs/symptoms suggesting an underlying issue, it does make sense to use these tests and exams, but in otherwise healthy patients, you may do more harm than good.
Being on dialysis, I get around 20 blood tests every month. Waiting for the results is nerve-wracking because I have a few tests that are borderline and I'm expecting the worst. There is also some random fluctuation which can cause me worries. The results are certainly useful to stay healthy but at the same time, for a day or two around the test time, I just can't concentrate on plan for anything.
I spend 10000x more time and effort monitoring the health and performance indicators of my servers compared to my body, it's astoundingly ignorant that we aren't more honed in on early detection for all sorts of issues.