Lot of discussion here on the 'dispositive proof' by Worobey et al. and the lack of intermediate lineage between lineage A & B (after intermediate genomes were ruled out without having access to the raw data to properly QC). A recent paper casts some doubts on at least extent of animal zoonosis (it any occurred at all) - indicating at least several of the early market cases were due to human to human transmission.
Whatsmore the early lineage A virus was only found in one environmental sample, all other env samples were B and all human infections were B.
Both points cast serious doubt as to whether the market was really the origin - or just a superspreader location.
Using a different method than Pekar et al., Caraballo-Ortiz et al. estimate a lat Sept/E Oct ancestral virus emergence in Wuhan. If correct, we can probably discount the Hunan seafood market as the origin, and need to look esewhere in Wuhan
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001393512...
What seems to get lost on people is that no animals in the market tested positive for a SARS-2-related virus.
https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-1370392/v1
Whatsmore the early lineage A virus was only found in one environmental sample, all other env samples were B and all human infections were B.
Both points cast serious doubt as to whether the market was really the origin - or just a superspreader location.
Using a different method than Pekar et al., Caraballo-Ortiz et al. estimate a lat Sept/E Oct ancestral virus emergence in Wuhan. If correct, we can probably discount the Hunan seafood market as the origin, and need to look esewhere in Wuhan
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34931186/