And now I see how this is a lot of circumstantial evidence, as reported earlier. But the problem is, even taking all these observations together and accepting them as evidence at face value, they can not explain the lack of or minority of or low density of infections surrounding the Wuhan Institute of Virology, nor can they explain the preponderance of and high density of infections tightly surrounding the Wuhan Fish Market.
Perhaps someone got infected at the lab, put on a hazmat suit, went shopping at the fish market, and removed their helmet there? Occam's Razor obliterates this idea as too complicated when a far simpler explanation is, like an elephant in the room, sitting in plain site, which is that SARS-CoV-2, like every other known virus ever, initially infected people in close proximity to animals in unsanitary conditions, neatly explaining the dense bloom of initial infections surrounding that market.
It's just my strong opinion, but I am flabbergasted that lab leak hypothesizers are so stubborn to ignore the way things have always happened, and there being such a good fit sitting right there at the market. They'd rather construct an unlikely scenario, a scenario that has never occurred before in 100 years of microbiology labs, of a thousand things going wrong to explain how the virus leaked from a modern and high tech virology lab.