I don't have much to say on the topic, but it's wrong to call any questioning back "whataboutism". Whataboutism applies to cases in which criticism is deflected

I don't have much to say on the topic, but it's wrong to call any questioning back "whataboutism". Whataboutism applies to cases in which criticism is deflected by a replying with criticism in turn. It does not apply when the criticism can be accepted and new criticism is offered. In other words, reading support or acceptance of Chinese statistics into GP's reply effectively fabricates "whataboutism". The point, in a charitable reading, is "Sure, Chinese numbers can't be trusted. But can the U.S.'s numbers be trusted?" - this interpretation does not lend any support to China, and merely points out that we need to be skeptical of both. The origin of the concept whataboutism lies with the USSR deflecting criticism by saying what the US was doing is worse. It was not an admission and then mutual criticism. That's the key difference. Case 1 (whataboutism): A: China can't be trusted to give out accurate numbers. B: Oh really? What about the US? The US is doing worse! Case 2 (not whataboutism): A: China can't be trusted to give out accurate numbers. B: Maybe that's true - but can the US' numbers be trusted either?