Michael
“….you might conclude that if you do not test you will not find?”
It is not that simple. You cannot make sweeping conclusions from crude statistics because there are so many variables.
I urge you to look at these figures and take the following points:
There is no absolute correlation between the number of tests done per million of population and the number of cases and deaths when you compare different countries. For example UK with 3,451,223 tests per million, has also a high death rate per million of 1,888 and no of cases per million of 81,486. Hong Kong tests per million 2,702,318, deaths per million is 28 and cases 1583. There are many more examples. And then look at Chile and Australia with similar number of tests and vastly different deaths and cases.
Looking at Germany, yes they have tested much less than other countries but also have a much lower number of cases and slightly lower deaths than say Austria and UK.
China, low testing low cases and low deaths.
So really the answer may be, it depends when and why you test and also what do you do when you test. My interpretation, which may be well of the mark is:
Places like china have extremely well directed testing and an efficient tracing and quarantine system and that ultimately leads to stamping down quickly on outbreaks and a much lesser need for continuous mass testing.
On the other extreme countries like UK have so politicized the process that they use statistics like mass testing as a political indicator to tout about and boast but do very little with the data, they do not act on it properly: no proper effective tracing and no appropriate quarantine, just voluntary self isolation, and therefore are forever chasing their tail with every new wave of infection.
Germany may be in the middle, wise testing, appropriate measures, compliant population that heads advise, and so on.
So in summary it is not the number of tests you do that matters, it is what you do with it!