What I got from your second round of data was that 1) nearly all of us were not affected and 2) the false positives are grossly distorting the story.
However, I don't know the full story behind that study or if it was repeatable in other places. The numbers you quoted could also be a false positive (or false negative if you prefer). I just don't know. Nor do I have the time and energy to find out.
While you have explained the terminology a little better, you are starting to lose me again. I am not an epidemiologist.
There comes a time where we commoners just have to trust the experts--especially if they are fairly united in their conclusions.
The fact that we don't trust the experts--and put more trust into people like Mr. Trump--is a sign of a broken system.
I have invented another system of democratic governance. In Chapter 8, I discuss options to this TDG. One of them could be The Consultancy. This institution would be comprised of experts in various fields and would help the government find out the truth and eventually better solutions.
My take on this crisis was that we were so unprepared for a pandemic (no warehouses of surplus medical supplies, etc.) that the epidemiologists got their full way at decision making table to manage ICU beds. Other facets of a civil society were put aside. The economists and psychologists were put on the back burner. Had we listened to the epidemiologists a few years before, we might have had a better balanced approach.
From your numbers and from Sweden's example, Covid 19 is not the black death.
Had we had The Consultancy, maybe it could have steered the politicians from giving full weight to epidemiologists.