James Corbett weighs in on Coronavirus and the problems with case numbers
Yep, Corbett's report was very good. The only thing I'm not sure about is related to the spike of around 15,000 cases. I might be wrong, but I'm pretty sure I read that China only changed its diagnostic criteria for that single day or so, and then reverted to using blood tests to (presumably) test for the actual virus. So while it's true that those in the spike hadn't actually been tested, I'm pretty sure all the cases before and after were. Of course, even that isn't a sure thing, as you point out (false negatives and positives) - the reliability of the test itself has to be taken into account.
Yes, perhaps it was just that one day; it's unclear.
Let's say it was as James reported re the new one day new diagnostic systems of CT Scans. This resulted in that reported spike of 15,000 cases in a 24 hour period. So, at 0.5 hours per scan (read that as an avg), that is 312 CT scanners humming along for 24 hours (and the diagnostic technicians to provide the positive Coronavirus cases, tabulate and report).
To be fair, with speedy patient care arrangements, China has the capacity as at 2015 to lower the number:
The numbers of CT and MRI scanners in secondary and tertiary hospitals in China were 12,888 and 6762 respectively in 2015 according to statistics from the Chinese Medical Doctor Association (CMDA).
All the same, those were funny reported diagnostic positive readings, though.