fco --- Thanks for the find. In the beginning this was my preferred theory. It made the most sense. But was also the most racist sounding ergo shut down almost as soon as it was mentioned.
---------------------------------
lapsody --- I'm not understanding how the virus emerging from animals is racist.

Rationally and truthfully speaking it's not. But it involved Chinese wet markets. Chinese people. A culture different from The West, especially USA. ergo if you find fault with it you're a racist. That's the socio/political mindset among a huge demographic and was thrown around liberally at the time. Remember there were a couple of incidents of some dumbass attacking a Chinese people (Americas of Chinese lineage IIRC) in the US were was just walking down the street? "The Chinese flu" etc etc. We were even admonished that German Measles started in Kansas ego Americans are stupid in these matters, which of course missed the entire point.

fco ---I still have the question, if The finding comes from a reanalysis of genomic data. what the hell was wrong with all the prior (and there were many many many) analyses of the genomic data?
This could just be more obfuscation and deflection masquerading as intrepid scientific pursuit of truth
----------------------------------------------------------
lapsody ---It's fine to be critical, read what you can of the article and others.

So, techniques of this kind have changed substantially in the last 5 years? Perhaps, but I find that dubious.

SNIP

New techniques
The latest study used more-sophisticated genomic techniques to identify species represented in the samples, including half a dozen animals the team says are possible intermediate hosts of SARS-Cov-2. The most likely hosts include raccoon dogs and masked palm civet (Paguma larvata), which also might be susceptible to the virus. Other possible hosts include hoary bamboo rats (Rhizomys pruinosus), Amur hedgehogs (Erinaceus amurensis) and the Malayan porcupine (Hystrix brachyura), but it is unclear whether these animals can catch SARS-CoV-2 and spread the infection. The team says the Reeves’s muntjac (Muntiacus reevesi) and the Himalayan marmot (Marmota himalayana) could also be carriers, but are less likely than the other species.

Wish I had time to read the all of everything on this, but even this article, which supports my own view, seems somehow wishy-washy. Are they equivocating over the fact COVID came from animal contact? Or are they equivocating only over which animal it came from? I am sure if I read the whole thing I'd find even more to be disappointed over.