Abstract
While the exact context of the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 remains uncertain, data accumulated since 2020 have provided an increasingly more precise picture of Wuhan's Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market, to which the earliest clusters of human cases of Covid-19 were linked. After the market closed on January 1st 2020, teams from the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention collected environmental samples, and sequenced them. Metagenomic sequencing data from these samples were shared in early 2023. These data confirmed that non-human animals susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 were present in the market before it closed, but also that these animals were located in the side of the market with most human cases, and in a corner with comparatively more SARS-CoV-2-positive environmental samples. The environmental samples were however collected after abundant human-to-human transmission had taken place in the market, precluding any identification of a non-human animal host. Jesse Bloom recently investigated associations between SARS-CoV-2 and non-human animals, concluding that the data failed to indicate whether non-human animals were infected by SARS-CoV-2, despite this being an already acknowledged limitation of the data. Here I explain why a correlation analysis could not confidently conclude which hosts(s) may have shed SARS-CoV-2 in the market, and I rebut the suggestion that such analyses had been encouraged. I show that Bloom's investigation ignores the temporal and spatial structure of the data, which led to incorrect interpretations. Finally, I show that criteria put forward by Bloom to identify the host(s) that shed environmental SARS-CoV-2 would also exclude humans. Progress on the topic of SARS-CoV-2's origin requires a clear distinction between scientific studies and news articles (mis)interpreting them.