> One problem for the wet market theory is that neither bats nor pangolins were sold at that wet market

That's not a problem for the theory. SARS did not come directly from bats (or pangolins). It went through civets first, which were sold at markets. That's why SARS first showed up in Foshan, 1000 km away from where the bats that harbor the ancestral virus to SARS live.

The Nature paper you linked shows that live animals that are known to be susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 were sold at the Huanan Seafood market. Because of that, the paper has been generally received as strongly supporting the idea that the outbreak began at the Huanan market.

Can you give more data on that? Last I knew, the animal reservoir wasn't identified, has that changed recently? We have a wild animal population infected with Covid-19?

I would revise my assessments if we have a clear animal reservoir, but I need to see more data on that first.

The intermediate host hasn't yet been identified, but the site of the first known outbreak was a market where wild animals were sold, exactly like with SARS. On the other hand, there's no evidence that links the outbreak to the lab in any way.

That goes back to seeming odd to me. We know all the animals there thanks to a comprehensive survey and prior outbreaks didn't take even half this long to find.

And several lab workers did get sick early on. We'll likely never find solid proof one way or another at this rate, though, unless an animal reservoir is found.

> We know all the animals there thanks to a comprehensive survey

The people surveying which animals were there were not from the government, and were not studying coronaviruses. They're conservationists, and it's coincidental that they did this survey just before the outbreak.

> And several lab workers did get sick early on.

So the US government claims, without providing any evidence.

> prior outbreaks didn't take even half this long to find.

That very much depends on which outbreak we're talking about. The intermediate species for SARS was found within about a year, but how Ebola spills over is still elusive, decades after its discovery.

Unlike with SARS, this time around, the Chinese government closed the market down quickly, and also quickly shut down the wildlife farms and culled their stock. That might possibly make finding the intermediate host more difficult.

Sure, but knowing the species and origins of the animals gives us a good overview of what's there. It's weird, but not impossible, that we haven't found it given that. If China had been more forthcoming--and had kept samples from the culls--we would likely have more answers.

Regarding the researchers, there were videos by some people in China who later vanished. I know that China is usually China, but that doesn't exactly make me trust them more.

> If China had been more forthcoming--and had kept samples from the culls--we would likely have more answers.

It's entirely possible that the people ordering the culls and the people carrying out the scientific investigations are different and don't talk to each other. From what I've heard, the wildlife trade was shut down very quickly after the outbreak was discovered. This is a bit like the Huanan market: it would have been scientifically valuable to keep it as-is and do a thorough study, but once the authorities discovered there was an outbreak there, they immediately ordered it to be closed and decontaminated - which makes sense from a public health point of view.

Anyways, there has been a lot of extremely valuable research published over the last year+ by Chinese researchers on the origins of the virus (we now know a lot more about the family of viruses that SARS-CoV-2 belongs to, for example), and I think progress will continue to be made.