No, this is incorrect and misleading. It is a meaningful statistic when interpreted right. See sibling comment.
Sibling comment is thoughtful and helpful but adds information not present in OP’s statement (base rate).
Edit: ah, you are OP. Just swap “OP” for “you” :)
This is an overly literal, pedantic, and ungenerous interpretation of what I said.
Clearly the actual numbers as well as the base rates for the relevant groups are necessary to meaningfully interpret the statistic, but I was hinting at a similar case after describing the logic for the original case, not exhaustively describing the similar case.