His whole argument seems to be that if we had tested more at the beginning we'd have had a better understanding of this virus.
I don't think anyone disagrees with that but he completely neglects to understand that we didn't have the tests so it's a theory that couldn't have been put into practice.
Without having enough tests and enough testing capacity other mitigating factors had to be introduced to slow the spread to make it manageable while tests and testing capacity was sought.
He also has the significant benefit of hindsight and a huge amount more data than was available 6 months ago.
At the end of March, when people were falling ill left right and centre, when all of a sudden hundreds of people were dying every day across the U.K. of a new respiratory illness that was affecting them in new and different ways to previously seen virus's, would it really have been acceptable to you for the Government to say, "Let's just see how this plays out, we need a few more weeks of data to understand fatality rate."