Let's take a look at that paper you linked. The supposedly damning point is that you can fit the data extremely well with a quadratic, in the sense that R^2 is high. However, the data points are rapidly increasing, and because of the way R^2 works, that means only the last ~4 data points have any impact on R^2 at all. The statement of the paper boils down to the claim that you can fit 4 data points on a smooth curve accurately using a 3-parameter fit whose form you got to choose. This is obviously true, for any 4 data points.
It's too bad that reason goes out the window whenever China is involved.
The story with the Reddit link is similar: at the time of the posting, only ~6 data points actually mattered for R^2, so you would expect R^2 to be very high. (The fit is extremely poor for the first ~6 data points, but that doesn't affect R^2 at all.) After the last date on the chart shown, the R^2 begins to plummet. This is also exactly what you would generically expect.
Amusingly, both of these totally ordinary results are taken as evidence for a conspiracy: the 6 points that fit are taken to be fabricated, and the subsequent points are taken to be fabricated with the sole purpose of throwing off people on Reddit. But if you can claim evidence for a conspiracy no matter what the numbers are, has something gone wrong in your reasoning process? You be the judge!
You're asking a bunch of unrelated questions. It's pretty obvious the epidemic in China is very serious. That's why they are taking all those measures.
None of the various measures taken to contain the outbreak have affected those numbers.
This apparently has happened before with organ donation data: https://bmcmedethics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s129...