Coronavirus: Lab Leak Part 18 - LA Times argues evidence is fading

While articles from The Intercept and The Telegraph UK explore the potential of a Lab Leak, The LA Times (Sep 28) makes the argument for zoonotic spread.

First, though, the article provides a false choice:

The question of the origin of COVID-19 isn’t of merely academic interest. The answer could guide the world’s preparation for future pandemics; if the virus emerged from a laboratory, then improving lab safety measures will be prioritized. If scientific opinion continues to coalesce around animal-to-human transmission, that will underscore the importance of regulating contact between humans and wildlife.

To put it another way, if we focus on the wrong answer, the right measures won’t be taken.

Hmm, maybe both measures should be taken? Don't we already know that some serious viruses came from zoonotic spread? So maybe we should already consider regulating how contact is made between humans and wildlife? And then via the findings from The Intercept and The Telegraph UK, shouldn't we be concerned about the research scientists are doing?

Here's some new evidence in support:

First: A paper posted online earlier this month chiefly by researchers at France’s Institut Pasteur and under consideration for publication in a Nature journal, however, reports that three viruses were found in bats living in caves in northern Laos with features very similar to SARS-CoV-2, the virus responsible for COVID-19.

I didn't read the links, but the LA Times could have looked explored how that explains the virus showing up in Wuhan.

Second: Another paper, posted in late August by researchers from the Wuhan lab, reports on viruses found in rats also with features similar to those that make SARS-CoV-2 infectious in humans.

Third: Two other papers published on the discussion forum virological.org present evidence that the virus jumped from animals to humans at more than one animal market in Wuhan, not just the Huanan seafood market.

I address something similar to the third argument here. In that case, the researcher had collected frozen tick samples. My question is: are scientists looking into the tick samples that were collected?