Your statement amounts to "we have to do something. This is something. Therefore we have to do it."
Doing the wrong thing can be extremely dangerous in this situation. Consciously choosing to wait until you have greater certainty that the action taken is correct isn't the same as inaction, not when the downside risks of getting it wrong are so high.
I disagree that theorizing and gathering data can be extremely dangerous in this situation. If we're worried the Stanford study is flawed, the right response is to urgently do more studies, not sit on our hands waiting for some ponderous FDA approval process.
There's a certain limited amount of qualified research capacity representing a bottleneck. So, urgently doing more studies to refute one that has flaws and bias by the author isn't the right type of action to take if it will take resources from other, more productive endeavors.
Theorizing and gathering data is fine; going on to write a WSJ op-ed pushing it in a way you hope will influence policy goes a far step beyond proper scientific research protocols.
Standard scientific research protocols are heavily biased towards inaction. We can't afford that bias in the middle of a global emergency; it matters a lot if necessary action gets delayed for a month or even a week. Imagine how bad things would have gotten if we had made the same demands a month ago - if we had refused to institute social distancing until randomized controlled trials proved it helped for this disease.
There was no need to delay social distancing on account scientific uncertainty over the practice. We already knew social distancing was an effective method of preventing spread. Heck, we've known it since the 1918 spanish flu, since quarantines themselves begam. (and still, it was delayed, still is delayed in some places)
The point is that there is a resource bottleneck on "action". There are limited resources. You qualified your own statement as necessary action. How do you know what is necessary? Options must be weighed, the most promising chosen, as many, but not all paths can be pursued. I'm not saying "do nothing", I'm saying that we can't do everything. And then, yes, in areas of great uncertainty, where wrong action can cause more harm than choosing to wait, then we should not take action merely for the sake of "we can't do nothing!!!" emotional response to the crisis.
Doing the wrong thing can be extremely dangerous in this situation. Consciously choosing to wait until you have greater certainty that the action taken is correct isn't the same as inaction, not when the downside risks of getting it wrong are so high.