And the Chinese government has said so themselves, and why would they lie?
They would absolutely lie, just as they lied about whether live animals were being sold at the market. However, they'd previously made public the viruses they were working on. Since they had no way of knowing that this one would escape, they would have had no reason not to include it as well. That hardly settles the matter, but it does mean that we evidence for one lie and not for the other, so we should look at other evidence before leaping to conclusions.
I'm pure there were ample opportunites to find virus samples anywhere else yiu cared to look in Wuhan, or anywhere else soon thereafter.
Generally, going by the actual evidence rather than what you imagine is a better route to sound conclusions. At this point, you're not using Occam's Razor: you're trying to argue away evidence that disagrees with your preferred conclusion.
Plus it's the politically smart thing to say.
Right -- falling back on conspiracy theorizing is just you applying Occam's Razor. Besides being offensive, your response is also irrelevant: independent of what they say to the public, most people in the field (including me) have concluded that the weight of evidence strongly favors an origin in the market.
Dunno. I kind of assume that if there are people at the market selling bats then somebody is also buying them. If so, why? Housepets? Their decorative qualities? Bat fanciers? Children's playthings? Experimentation at the local Virus Works? I'm keen to know.
As far as I know, no bats were being sold at the market -- the concern has always been about the sale of potential intermediate host animals that could carry coronaviruses, not with the sale of bats.
No, raccoon dogs, masked palm civets, Amur hedgehogs, Malayan porcupines, or hoary bamboo rats, all of which are known to have been present at that market. Probably others were there as well.