There is definitely opaqueness and one needs to know how to read the data. For example China does not report people who test positive but do not develop pneumon

There is definitely opaqueness and one needs to know how to read the data. For example China does not report people who test positive but do not develop pneumonia. The criteria for classification is clearly listed in the national guideline but is easy to escape notice because the daily report is terse and does not reference the definitions. It may not be a big deal in terms of assessing mortality (WHO explained the percentage of asympotamaic cases that test positive is small), but it can make a significant difference when assessing risk for a particular region. If a region reports zero case but there is actually a postive test, the risk outlook is quite different even though the report is technically correct. But it would be unfortunate to then disregard all Chinese data. That would be like throwing out the baby with bath water. If we don't study their experience we will be bound to repeat their mistakes. Fortunately this does not appear to be the case with medical professionals and scientists, judging from the volume of peer reviewed publications coming out of China.