In an ideal world, if we knew perfectly who had the virus, we could quarantine and treat just those people, everyone else could move on with their life. That's good, right?

In a world where we lack data, politicians flail around making bad decisions which impact our liberties, destroying the economy, and giving people all sorts of depression. Bad, right?

I'm going to assume that by saying you're not a big fan of testing, that doesn't mean you want us to lack data, correct? Because honestly, I have a hard time understanding what you mean when your day the emphasis on testing was too big.

I'll allow that you might have issues with the way testing was done. But there are testing strategies and approaches that deal with the problems brought up in the linked article. We can greatly improve our knowledge with regard to the virus and the way it spreads by testing. Knowledge is power.

All the author of the article you linked does is point out that when trying there are false positives and false negatives. This is statistics 101. So, in our current environment, let's look at the cost to individuals and societies if there is a false positive. They are asked to stay home for two weeks. Basically what society is asking everyone to do now. Essentially no change (cost) there. What's the cost of a false negative? A person may go around unknowingly spreading the disease. The same as they would right now.

I'm glad you like that a doctor agreed with you, but I don't want my doctor trying to solve a data problem. That's what this is. Testing an individual for treatment is where a doctor's expertise and skill come in. Testing large groups of people for patterns and transmissivity is a data problem. There are sampling and treat techniques that mitigate the concerns raised by the author of that article. That article amounts to fancy click bait.