Just adding to what @altleft has already mentioned

My own view on SARS-CoV-2, as a physician, is that it is no more deadly than a seasonal flu, with a better-than-99% survival rate for most.

Well most of my close friends in healthcare including both practicing doctors and residents who have been on their toes since the start of pandemic think otherwise. This statement is also quite opposite of what most epidemiologists have been presenting in their talks.

1. use of a PCR test with high amplification cycles that produce high false-positive rates.

The cycle number 40 is what I have used in a qPCR, every time I have done it since last 10 years. Also, ct value for a positive result was set to <35, with initial RT-PCR assays that we did in testing facility. The cycle number is hardly ever the reason for false positive. If the gene my primers binds to is not there, it wont amplify even at 100 cycles magically. Also, the RT PCR tests were conducted first for E gene, followed by RdRp and ORF1a. Now a days they even use other viral genes in the multiplex assays. This drastically reduces chances of a false positive. If you do see contradiction between amplification of two genes its always best to resample and retest.

Masks are ineffective due to the relative sizes of the virus and the pores in the mask, to the point of being like putting up a chain-link fence to keep out mosquitoes.

Masks can cutoff a lot of droplets that virus rides on. It doesn't eradicate it but it reduces the probability of infection. It reduces it even more, if both infected and target are wearing them. Think of it this way. Viruses don't have wings. And most of them are in droplets and aerosols. They are more like microscopic balls being thrown at you.

Now imagine that you have an old fashioned lift door made of metal grills in front of you. And you have a bucket of balls of random sizes (we will assume all are smaller than the holes between the grills). Would the number of balls you get into this lift will be equal to the number if the grill was left wide open? What if you were also throwing the balls from another closed lift? Well some balls may pass through, but it will take longer time and many more balls to begin with to reach the same target compared to a wide open door. This target in case of virus would be the minimum infectious dose. And this is how even if it doesn't provide ultimate protection it does have power to lower the probability.

I suggested above, use of an incomplete vaccine during a pandemic is absolutely insane.

Well your concern around this is legit. But, if a complete vaccine means a vaccine that provides "sterilizing immunity"! Well, that has been a theoretical dream, but it rarely happens in practice. A sterlizing immunity would look something like development of LLPCs in all vaccinated individuals which produce constant titers of neutralizing Antibodies (nAbs). Even better if they are mucosal IgA nAbs. The intrinsic variability in the population to begin with makes it hard to achieve. But, let's say it did. Even then once a while a the stoichiometric ratio between virus to guarding nAbs may get skewed towards the virus. And one or two particles will escape to infect one cell somewhere.

But, will this breakthrough infection now develop into a clinically significant infection? Well that is all that matters, now. I mean you also have second layer of immune responses trained by the vaccine in form of memory B and T cells sitting there. Will they let the infection get as bad? That is what has mattered the most, for most vaccines out there. Be it smallpox or measles vaccine. None was perfect to provide absolute sterilizing immunity. But they have been good enough to -

1. mitigate the mortality and morbidity
2. slow and even eradicate the spread of infection