If you yourself read the links you posted, you'd know these two thins are just speculation 1) They do not explain way, Worobey just assumes that first patient

If you yourself read the links you posted, you'd know these two thins are just speculation 1) They do not explain way, Worobey just assumes that first patient was different person, with connection to wet market, while it is known that both WHO and China identified earlier patient without connection to the wet market. If you read long enough you will find that he is being criticized exactly for that assumptions without any proof. 2) Does not matter.