Perhaps in your mind, but this is not at all a fair representation of the general scientific consensus - most still hold the weight of the evidence leans towards a November '19 origin in Wuhan
"However, two papers published in late January revealed that up to 45% of the first confirmed patients—including four of the five earliest cases—did not have any ties to the market, casting doubt on the theory that it was the origin. Shi agrees: “The Huanan seafood market may just be a crowded location where a cluster of early novel coronavirus patients were found.”
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/07/trump-owes-us-apolog...
I have experience in academia, so it might be easier to parse because of that, but news articles are certainly not sufficient.
There are reports that the French team that traveled in October in Wuhan for mil. sports games, got infected by it. So, that it was at circulating in Wuhan at least since October, even most probably: early september.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/05/08/covid-19-pandemi...
I haven't crunched these numbers, but a start in early September seems unlikely to me - call it a hunch, based on looking at the initial growth curves.
I'm not going to respond to the rest of the comment suggesting the Telegraph should be part of my consideration when judging the science.
In your poorly fit analogy, the scientific consensus would be the gun to the single, unreviewed paper's knife.