1. COVID-19 was first reported to public health authorities on 12/27. The doctor who made the discovery had tested the patients for influenza, common cold and so on before reporting.
Public health authorities announced 'viral pneumonia of unknown cause' on Dec 31. On Jan 5 a Shanghai lab sequenced the virus from a sample sent from Wuhan (per protocol) and confirmed its a novel coronavirus. The lab immediately informed both Shanghai and national health authorities. China's medical-surveillance network had done a fantastic job!
2. I made a mistake here. The afflicted healthcare workers were denied access to their own chest CT scans. This was unusual and clearly an attempt at information control (although not necessarily a cover-up).
3. Again the question is not whether it's a novel virus, they knew by Jan 5 it was. The question was human to human transmission. The doctor who first discovered COVID-19 immediately suspected it's infectious (as an entire family of three were infected).
According to the first Caixin article, on Jan 5 a doctor with no contact history to the seafood market was suspected of having COVID-19 (later confirmed). CT scan confirmed lung infections. It was never mentioned in the Caixin article but it would be surprising if no tests were done to exclude other known causes for pneumonia. There were soon (one on Jan 6) other suspected cases emerging among healthcare workers too, many of them later diagnosed as having COVID-19. It would be surprising if none of them were tested to exclude other known causes for pneumonia. Given how fast the health authority announced 'viral pneumonia of unknown cause', it shouldn't take more than four days to test for the known causes to a high standard (high enough to allow the announcement in the first place). So by Jan 10 or Jan 11 at latest it should have became clear that healthcare workers without exposure to the seafood market also had 'viral pneumonia of unknown cause'. What's the odds of having two such diseases emerging at the same time? Yet the health authorities were still denying human to human transmission. Again, no smoking gun for a deliberate cover-up but to think there's no cover-up you had to believe a medical-surveillance network that was super efficient at identifying the disease and the virus for lay patients suddenly became inefficient when it came to healthcare workers, when they should had became more alert as a novel coronavirus had just been discovered.
4. The criteria were not for identifying a outbreak but for identifying individual cases. Again I'm no medical expert and I stand to be corrected, but I cannot think of a good reason to disallow a individual case with both the symptoms and the presence of the virus (confirmed by full sequencing) from being confirmed, other than to prevent confirmed cases with no exposure to the seafood market. As for the doctor's stress on the strictness of condition 3 rather than condition 1, I would imagine both the doctor and the journalist would want to avoid making or being seen as making a direct accusation against the National Health Commission.