Origins of Covid-19

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Regardless of whether the hypothesis of the virus starting in the Wuhan's animal market will be later confirmed by good evidence, why would the hypothesis of the virus starting in the Wuhan's animal market be "prejudice"?
It is currently one of the reasonable unproven hypotheses to be tested by science.
And if that hypothesis IS then later confirmed by good evidence, would you STILL be calling it "prejudice"?

The post that was quoted here has been removed

That's not how the real science works.
Most scientists that came up with the hypothesis would naturally consider other hypotheses.
Why would this particular hypothesis be more "prejudice" than any of the other alternative hypotheses they consider?
I ask you again; if that hypothesis IS then later confirmed by good evidence, would you STILL be calling it "prejudice"?

The post that was quoted here has been removed

and then you wrote;

"From the Guardian
"How did coronavirus start and where did it come from?
Was it really Wuhan's animal market?"
..."

Thus implying the theory that it started in the Wuhan's animal market is "prejudice".
Do you deny implying this?
If so, explain why you wrote that straight after writing "POPULAR prejudice is not scientific proof."
If not, then my question of;

"why would the hypothesis of the virus starting in the Wuhan's animal market be "prejudice"? "

would seem to be a reasonable one. Scientists consider several different hypotheses including that one. I for one, and most scientists, didn't assume that particular hypothesis must necessarily be the correct one. We keep an open mind. So no "prejudice" there from considering that particular one.

And you still haven't answered my other question of;

" And if that hypothesis IS then later confirmed by good evidence, would you STILL be calling it "prejudice"? "

The post that was quoted here has been removed

which exact words would that be then?
State them.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Deny, deny, deny.

@eladar said
It was most likely a virus research facility in Wuhan.

Judging from the several videos I have seen with real experts talking about this subject, there are good reasons to think that is extremely unlikely albeit still possible. Much more likely C19 had a more 'natural' origin. There are still several theories how it started and few have been ruled out and its difficult to say which is most likely but at the moment, regardless of how it started, it looks more likely it started in China than in any other country simply because China was the first country where it was first noticed (and we should simply ignore all of the several politically motivated currently-baseless stupid wild layperson conspiracy theories to the contrary that seem to be circulating around over the net but, obviously, not ignore any of the scientific ones from the real experts). But we cannot even be sure of that and thus for all we know that might well change if we get more evidence and clues to its origins. In the mean time, it would be rational and reasonable to assume it probably started in China because it was first noticed there, just as it would be rational and reasonable to assume it probably started in the US if it had hypothetically been first noticed there instead.

@humy said
Regardless of whether the hypothesis of the virus starting in the Wuhan's animal market will be later confirmed by good evidence, why would the hypothesis of the virus starting in the Wuhan's animal market be "prejudice"?
It is currently one of the reasonable unproven hypotheses to be tested by science.
And if that hypothesis IS then later confirmed by good evidence, would you STILL be calling it "prejudice"?

One thing to note is that the first detected human case in Wuhan had no links with the market. What is clear is that the virus is zoonotic, and it's main host was bats, it is believed to have infected an intermediate species, possibly pangolins, first. I think it is really unlikely that the cause of the disease in humans is from snacking on bats. For one thing cooking the bat will tend to kill the disease. Encroaching on their habitat is more likely to be the cause, which is also likely to be why we see more Ebola outbreaks.