I don’t think many are arguing that the market was not a viral cesspool. It’s clear the market was a pathway. I think the objection is to the claim that market transmission disproves lab leak.All the stuff on the pre-print servers is under review. Some submissions will past muster, other's won't. Those that do pass muster it will be like "fix this, this and this". That's how it is.
thanks for linking to the Pekar et al preprint. I had not seen it. It's largely a UCSD/Scripps and UCLA piece of work. And, IMO, a submission crackling with some interesting new phylogenetic computational approaches. Long and short of it is that with their analytical developments they can work backwards in genetic time and assess the probabilities of different types of initiating "rooting" events for the pandemic initiating in Wuhan. And the only one that really works given the Cov2 genomes that they feed into their analysis is two separate jumps into humans from animal resevoirs occurring in a short space of time. I can see some things they will likely be asked about on review but the core of it feels pretty solid.
How does it feed into the lab leak hypothesis? The answer is, of course,given the physical proximity of the Whuhan labs, any way you want it to. As I've said previously it's basically a historical/political question, not a scientific one. Two separate jumps = viruses brought into a market which start recombining into a nasty little cesspool that jumps two times? Versus, something brought out of a lab, accidentily or maybe not, mingling with an intermediate host and that's what leads to the conditions for two jumps? It's worth pointing out because this is as much insight as we msy get on the matter. Kind of like three guys meet up in a over priced bar to talk about campaign data and a Ukrainian "peace plan". What do we call it? Prove it versus disprove the negative.
Anyway, thing that got me off on this was that, in this thread, omicron was proposed as a jump from human to mice and back to human (two jumps), Nobody says boo. And then you post these links that basically say two jumps (and easier ones really and get shit canned for not thinking for yourself? Somebody is not thinking (or understanding WTF they are talking about) but it's not you.
I can see how the statistical genetics argument can give you a timeline for when the virus got to the market. I don’t see how a statistical genetics argument tells you where it came from. Inside a bat, or inside a bat researcher who is there to buy dinner?