I'm not your personal search engine, fyi.

I've seen reported sensitivities around 85%, which is moderate at best even after eliminating outliers.

Above that: The nature of these tests depends severely on the assumed prevalence (of e.g. 3%) in the general population, which you completely ignore because it is an argument harder than steel contradicting your opinion.

Read up first and then discuss.

Also: If this still isn't enough for you to rethink, we can start picking apart testing groups by age and their corresponding quantiles in those tested subsets.

People died with a Corona-Infection (at best, hence, so to say), only very, very seldom from it.

After that, of course, they hid or destroyed most of the bodies or documents as fast as they possibly could to undermine any systematic efforts to autopsy them for their real cause of death. Which of course also could have undermined the tests as "adequate" themselves.

I've seen statistics made by German colleagues of mine that do good estimates on the sum of life-time lost during Corona and gained at the same time due to Influenza-deaths going down because people were wearing masks and isolating themselves.

If you could a price on a day a human life is worth per day lived, we gained - more or less - nothing in measurable lifetime surplus of the general population. But the assumed credibility of the tests -true or not- played a big role in justification.

At gigantic cost for societies and economies in the future due to a severe rise in psychic problems of people less than 18 years old from lockdowns alone.

I'm not even talking about the world economy taking a planned nosedive here.

These mostly nonsensical tests just caused cost that surely ain't more than pocket-change in relation to the effect of the masses believing into them had so far.

Which all the bobbleheads around the world strongly needed to justify their swing to authoritarian, sometimes even almost martial-law statecraft.