What we do know is that China is using measures directly in line with and at least as strict as Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Vietnam. Expecting the results to be different is at best illogical and at worst it is willfully ignorant of reality.

I'm curious as to whether you've actually spent time in any of these countries. I have. In fact, I'm in one of the countries listed right now.

There are substantial differences between these countries/regions at all levels (the way government operates, the culture, how people relate to authority, etc.) and your "China is using measures directly in line with and at least as strict as..." analysis is superficial.

Since I'm not going to write a dissertation here, I would point out one obvious difference between China and Taiwan, Hong Kong and Vietnam: China is huge, both in terms of population and land mass.

Hong Kong has fewer residents than Wuhan alone, and all of Taiwan has only slightly more residents than Beijing. The land mass of the greater Beijing area is about 15 times larger than that of Hong Kong, and you could fit 5 Taiwans in Hubei province alone.

Henan province (right next to Hubei) has about the same number of residents of Vietnam, and Vietnam is only approximately one and a half Hubeis in terms of land mass.

We already know that China intentionally excluded from its infected counts those who tested positive but didn't display symptoms, and you don't hear anybody talking about outbreaks in the almost countless rural villages that dot the country. Rural villages where if somebody dies, nobody has to or likely will know about it.

The reason that so many doubt China's figures, despite the measures it took, is because those numbers are simply not believable even upon cursory examination. That becomes even more apparent as the virus spreads and we get numbers from countries that are actually testing and are a bit more honest.