[0] https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2020/09/coronavir...
[1] https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.11.24.391763v1....
(When that article points out things like "Scientists have yet to find the direct parent of SARS-CoV-2 in feral beasts", or that with regard to some specific Chinese-military-catalogued viruses Yan fingered, "bat coronaviruses were circulating in wild bats and could have been discovered by anyone", it's saying things very consistent with the chance that this could be a wholly natural virus that was carried to Wuhan & then escaped into that urban environment via lab collection then escape. There were a lot of researchers carrying novel natural strains from caves back to labs!)
Your links [1] & [2] are interesting but seem to include no opinion or reasoning for or against a lab escape or lab-enhancement, either way.
The coronavirus pandemic, which started from a coronavirus in bats swapping species, started in the same city that happened to be actively researching the ability of coronaviruses from bats to swap species.
This doesn’t mean it was “non-natural genetically”, but I don’t see how we can eliminate it happening in the lab as a possibility, particularly considering if it was true there would be a large incentive to perform a cover up.
I mean personally I believe it starting in the lab is the more obvious answer applying Occam’s Razor.
Looking at the behavior of the virus and the arguments of some evolutionary geneticists (and I'm not well versed in genetics so I'm trusting their credentials here) changes things a bit of course.
Now maybe statistically it's more likely that someone just happened to have a heart attack next to an open bottle of poison, but Occam's Razor isn't to select the most likely answer, it's to select the simplest answer. The simpler answer is that he ingested poison, rather than he had a heart attack near a bottle of open poison.
If a pandemic involving a bat-virus swapping species starts in a city then it was probably just a virus jumping species. If that city happens to be doing active research on how much bat-viruses can swap species, then I think Occam's Razor can apply.
Obviously there is no objective truth to Occam's Razor, and what I think is the simplest explanation may differ from what you think is the simplest explanation.
Also, I think doing active research on something that can jump species and is highly contagious in a city would massively increase your risk of it jumping species in that city. That risk is increased if the lab is known for poor controls and was flagged as a risk, as the one in Wuhan was in the us cables.
Additionally if a researcher did get infected, there is a high chance that they would be asymptomatic and wouldn’t even know it was them.
The only “proof” that it wasn’t from the lab is the dna analysis, but that only proves that the research wasn’t altering the genome / that there was bio-engineering, there is still loads of research you can do without playing with the genome.
I've seen a few interviews and articles by evolutionary microbiologists who have examined some of the genetic and behavioral traits and found several that indicate that it evolved under selective pressures of being in a controlled environment like a lab. I don't have links to them, but I'm sure they can be found with an internet search, once you wade through the mountains of bullshit that you're sure to pull up when you do. Two behavioral traits I noted were the significantly lower number of cases that are thought to have been spread outdoors and the propensity of the virus to move across different tissues, a trait that is deliberately selected for in lab testing of viruses because it enables ease of testing in different scenarios.
So there is evidence is came from a lab, but so far no proof that the public is privy too.