>>11424622No, there's four possibilities: 1) figures inaccurate, skewed by underreporting, 2) figures inaccurate, skewed by over-reporting, 3) figures inaccurate, not skewed by impartiality but predicated on unreliable data, and 4) figures accurate, not skewed by impartiality and predicated on reliable, definitive data.
(4) is essentially impossible given the asymptomatic spread and testing policies in place (e.g. the UK only extended testing to those showing ILI symptoms a couple days ago. Previously, people were only tested having visited an epicentre). In China's case, epidemiologists estimate that as many as 2/3rds of infected people on outbound flights from Wuhan were missed. It is simply impossible to have real-time accurate data on a highly-transmissible infection unless it is contained. Today's confirmed cases are an indication of the infection's historical transmission success (and can be anywhere from 2 to 14 days behind). Today's fatality statistics are an indication of the virus' fatality rate almost 20 days ago (given that it takes about that long for the infection to prove fatal from t = 0).
I am inclined to believe that (3) is off the table. I have already given several reasons to doubt the reliability of China's official figures.
You suggest that over-reporting is one of only two possibilities, but I simply can't think of a single compelling reason to suspect that (2) is likely. It's unreasonable supposing that China over-stated the infection rates to incentivise countermeasures: again, China officially sanctioned Dr. Li Wenliang for discussing the (then) nascent infection with colleagues; they permitted massive Lunar New Year festivities to go ahead in the full knowledge of a potential outbreak, unlike Switzerland who have sensibly prohibited large events.
>There's no reason for them to under-report the true numbersThere are countless geopolitical, social, and economic reasons for their doing exactly that. (1) is probable, given the evidence.
