Leaked data points to serious underreporting of coronavirus cases in China

Chinese authorities aren’t exactly known for being forthcoming, so it comes as little surprise that a database from the National University of Defense Technology in China indicates that the country actually has hundreds of thousands more cases of coronavirus than the officially reported figure of 84,029.

According to the Daily Mail, data leaked to 100 Reporters and Foreign Policy shows 640,000 individual entries across 230-plus cities in China, indicating the latitude, longitude and number of confirmed cases at locations on specific dates from February through April. Some of these locations include supermarkets, hotels, apartment compounds, schools, hospitals and restaurants.

It’s possible the number could be even higher than the 640,000 entries as those with access to the database in question pointed to at least one single data entry that contained two cases of the virus. It’s not clear how many others may also represent more than one case.

It’s also not known why data was taken from various locations on specific dates, nor is it known what was considered a “confirmed” case of the virus.

And although they’re quick to caution that a lack of patient names and contact information makes it difficult to verify the data, experts have long believed that China is playing fast and loose with the numbers.

China claims that just 4,600 people there have died from the virus. The country has been accused of deliberately covering up figures, perhaps in hopes of showing world leaders how well it has responded to the virus or to give themselves time to stock up on medicine and PPE before the virus spread.

Of course, it’s also important to keep in mind that as many as 80 percent of people who catch the virus might not display any symptoms at all and therefore may not be tested or counted, which means the real numbers would be higher still.

We already know that they’ve lied about the numbers before. In April, authorities in the Chinese city of Wuhan, where the pandemic began toward the end of last year, revised their death toll upward by a remarkable 50 percent, even as the government continued to deny there had been a coverup in their handling of the situation.

On that occasion, they added 1,290 fatalities to their death toll, which brought the number of confirmed deaths from 2,579 to 3,869. The revision followed weeks of experts expressing skepticism about the numbers in China that were being officially reported. Officials there claimed the revision was due to delayed or incorrect information rather than any sort of deliberate coverup.

Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Zhao Lijian said: “Medical workers at some facilities might have been preoccupied with saving lives and there existed delayed reporting, underreporting or misreporting, but there has never been any coverup and we do not allow coverups.”

Global coronavirus death toll likely far higher than reported

Meanwhile, analysis by the Financial Times shows that the global coronavirus death toll could be as much as 60 percent higher than what’s being reported even in countries that aren’t actively trying to cover up the truth.

After assessing the overall fatalities during the coronavirus pandemic across 14 countries, they found 122,000 deaths that were in excess of the normal levels seen in the places studied. This was significantly higher than the 77,000 official COVID-19-related deaths reported in those areas, leading them to conclude that should that same level of underreporting be taking place around the world, the global death toll would rise from the 201,000 officially registered at the time of their report to 318,000.

Although China wasn’t included in their analysis, we have every reason to believe that the actual numbers there could be even greater – and the leaked database only adds more fuel to the fire. It simply doesn’t make any sense that the country where coronavirus originated would have so few deaths compared to other nations, and misrepresenting the truth is pretty much par for the course there.

Sources for this article include:

ZeroHedge.com

DailyMail.co.uk

FT.com