>SARS and Civet coronaviruses. The closest match of any host or vector coronavirus to human Covid-19 has been a 96% match in _Rhinolophus affinis_ (a bat). That's also the major bat species that was used for live animal research in both Wuhan Institute of Virology and Wuhan CDC, according to peer-reviewed research published in international scientific journals.

I thought direct bat-to-human transmission was considered broadly unlikely (sorry for non-scholarly source):

"On February 7, 2020, we learned that a virus even closer to SARS-CoV-2 had been discovered in pangolin. With 99% of genomic concordance reported, this suggested a more likely reservoir than bats. However, a recent study under review shows that the genome of the coronavirus isolated from the Malaysian pangolin (Manis javanica) is less similar to SARS-Cov-2, with only 90% of genomic concordance. This would indicate that the virus isolated in the pangolin is not responsible for the COVID-19 epidemic currently raging.

However, the coronavirus isolated from pangolin is similar at 99% in a specific region of the S protein, which corresponds to the 74 amino acids involved in the ACE (Angiotensin Converting Enzyme 2) receptor binding domain, the one that allows the virus to enter human cells to infect them. By contrast, the virus RaTG13 isolated from bat R. affinis is highly divergent in this specific region (only 77 % of similarity). This means that the coronavirus isolated from pangolin is capable of entering human cells whereas the one isolated from bat R. affinis is not."
https://theconversation.com/coronavirus-origins-genome-analy...

To be clear, I'm taking this as suggesting that just having the bats in the lab in order to study the coronaviruses they carry isn't a likely vector of direct transmission to humans ("bat blood, bat pee" as your OP suggested). I'm also sticking with broad scientific opinion that says there was most likely another spillover animal.

>To be more specific, I mean wet markets dealing in exotic, non-domestic source of meat, ones that are scientifically known to pose a threat of spreading novel infectious organisms. You believe they should continue to operate as before?

I don't have time to look it up but I wouldn't be surprised to find that such trade is nominally illegal in china, hence the "bats aren't sold in this wet market" line. They are, but they aren't.

Since there are many definitions of "exotic sources of meat", "domestic sources of meat" I think people should be able to eat what they want as long as it isn't an endangered animal or one that presents broader risk e.g. virus spillover. And of course it would be better if we didn't pollute the environment with intensified domestic farming, which is what is happening where I am.

Regarding Trump/war I suppose you're right, it was just jarring. My war comment was wild speculation based on how the world might react to the irrefutable news that COVID19 was caused by a scientific accident.

But there are other possible causes of war than just Trump wanting or not wanting one.

In the meantime I'm going to stick with scientific opinion vs. unnamed sources, diplomatic cables that aren't released in their entirety, etc. Speculation.

I try to ask myself, do you want this to be true? Why?

I want it to be true that the virus jumped through animals to humans and wasn't the result of a lab accident because I see major global strife occurring if it were a lab accident.

Do you want it to be true that it was a lab accident? Why? Because it was definitive human error? Because China? (hope not :/ ) Because it's a simple and satisfying explanation, as I suggested earlier?