The original paper, which is more informative and less spin-heavy, suggests an infected technician or PCR test of a virus sample were relatively unlikely to be

The original paper, which is more informative and less spin-heavy, suggests an infected technician or PCR test of a virus sample were relatively unlikely to be the source. It also suggests there were likely samples taken from at least three different infected hosts, one of which was a southeast Asian human and two of which are common lab animals and cell cultures known to have been used for published studies of SARS-COV-2. This is of course consistent with a novel virus discovered in humans being tested in animal cell cultures (whether before China had publicly acknowledged COVID-19, or in January when it was publicly disclosed and it's known that SARS-COV-2 being studied in animal cell cultures) as well as the more sensational scenario https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-1330800/v1 https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-1330800/v1