you claimed a factual certainty... and your own linked article cautioned against your zeal: "Prof Andrew Cunningham of Zoological Society of London (ZSL) said it was important not to jump to conclusions from the paper. "The source of the detected coronavirus really is unknown - it might have been a natural pangolin virus or have jumped from another species between capture and death.""
you're not the grandMysteryHuntingMaven you aspire to; you have a most circumspect history of preferring "alternative facts", particularly those that you find a way to craft to your self-serving agenda. You speak of "experts looking closely at the Wuhan live animal market"... for good reason you say. But somehow, you manage to ignore the study I referenced and the data/graphic that; again:
as for your questioned likelihood, as I read/infer, it's likely an intermediary animal brought the virus into the market... and without any known historical direct linkages between bats and humans, it's just as likely that the intermediary animal might be a domestic animal bitten by a bat... a domestic animal brought into the market for sale.
So is it your position that since we don't know for sure that the current pandemic resulted from animal trafficking, we don't need to worry about it in the future?
If it is, that's a patently stupid idea.
It's proven they caused the last one, it's more than likely they caused this one, and it's only a matter of time before they cause another one.
As for the possibility that it was domestic animals, I read an article recently arguing that the "wet markets" wouldn't need to be closed if the wild animals weren't there. That's because China's domestic animals have been demonstrated to have low rates of disease, not much different than western animals.
As for your graph, a quick glance at it is all one needs to see how much information is missing. A 10-day gap between the first and 2nd case alone should be a big clue how much they don't know about those early days. They don't know that that was the first case, they don't know how many asymptomatic carriers there were, they don't know how many people were sick but didn't seek medical care, and given that animal trafficking is "illegal, wink wink" in China, they also probably don't know who was or wasn't actually involved in animal trafficking.
So holding up your little graph and saying "look, the first guy didn't even go to the market!" isn't very convincing. It's kind of sad, really.
I'm still wondering why you're lawyering on behalf of these scumbags. Why are you standing up for such despicable people?
-k