The "biomarkers" bit is disinformation, for a decade we have had technology to allow for seamless edits to viral backbones that leave no trace behind. The only way anyone can tell the difference between a natural and modified virus is if they know the backbone. But there is a reason the scientists who wrote proximal origin paper were so focused on the furin cleavage site and their suspicions it was engineered and that is because these types of things are common practice.

Here is the patent for the “No See'm” approach https://patents.google.com/patent/US7618802B2/en?q=(seamless...

> What follows from that belief?

I think what follows is "we need more resilient anti-leak protocols in the laboratories".

The alternative origin hypothesis gives us "we need to change how wet markets work".

I'd say "improve both" — but not with the expectation of placating anyone who fell into any of the conspiracy theories, nor anyone who just wants an excuse to blame China.