I came up with a standard Bayesian example as to point out my confusion.
There is an epidemic. A person has a probability $\frac{1}{100}$ to have the disease. The authorities decide to test the population, but the test is not completely reliable: the test generally gives $\frac{1}{110}$ people a positive result but given that you have the disease the probability of getting a positive result is $\frac{80}{100}$.
I am interested in what happens after a person takes another test, specifically how much more information we would gain.
Probability after one test
Let $D$ denote the event of having the disease, let $T$ denote event of a positive outcome of a test. If we are interested in finding $P(D|T)$ then we can just go and apply Bayes rule:
$$ P(D|T) = \frac{P(T|D)P(D)}{P(T)} = \frac{0.8 \times 0.01}{0.009} = 0.88 $$
This feels about right.
Probability after two tests
This is where I think I misunderstand Bayes rule somewhat. Let $TT$ denote the outcome of two positive tests. We are now interested in calculating;
$$ P(D|TT) = \frac{P(TT|D)P(D)}{P(TT)} $$
The prior $P(D)$ is still $\frac{1}{100}$. $P(TT|D)$ would now be $0.8 \times 0.8$ because the two test can be assumed to be independent.
But I seem to not know how to deal with $P(TT)$ ... it cannot be $\frac{1}{110} \times \frac{1}{110}$ because then;
$$ \frac{P(TT|D)P(D)}{P(TT)} = \frac{0.64 \times 0.01}{0.009^2} > 1 $$
What is the right approach to the two-test Bayesian case?