This article by Angela L. Rasmussen and Stephen A. Goldstein has some basic issues:
www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/virus-origins-nature-lab

Yes there are markets in Wuhan and it is a transport hub. But that does NOT change the odds of a breakout there against any other major city in China.

They all have markets and transport links!

Because the odds are unchanged, you are then back to having to deal with odds that favour a lab accident!

I covered this fallacy and the odds in my probabilistic paper (see 2.a):
researchgate.net/publication/34…

That market and transport hub line is mostly rationalizing ('just a coincidence'), when having to face facts that may contradict your representation of the world.

It does not move the odds. Sorry there.

See also #4 and #5 in:
gillesdemaneuf.medium.com/some-common-pr…

The second issue with this article is that it uses the old trope of mixing up the debate of man-made vs natural virus with the lab-related accident hypothesis.

They are very different issues.
I took the pain to put this clearly in a table with the Paris Group (3rd letter):

And we clearly separated that from the possible hypotheses on the virus itself.

Again it is very annoying to see people who should know better mixing things up and falling into the cognitive dissonance trap of rationalizing.

#Drastic #ParisGroup
researchgate.net/publication/35…