This line of reasoning makes no sense at all. You are saying the Chinese response was too good/swift compared to the West and it proves a conspiracy.
First issue with that is the Chinese response (lockdown) was not really swift at all. In fact, it was done about 2 months after patient 0, when there were hundreds of confirmed cases and filled hospitals. The impending outbreak was clear to experts including at least one from Hong Kong. If anything it was a rather slow reaction.
The worse responses from parts of Europe and US can't prove anything aside from their own incompetence. Other Asian countries were able to contain it with less time, information, warning or help.
Also, everyone knows the Chinese reported numbers are wildly inaccurate. Part of that is due to factors such as lack of testing capabilities. Add to that the various cover-ups throughout the process, especially at the beginning of the outbreak.
Regardless, it's clear how the containment was able to work. It was by locking down the entire city (blocking roads and all public transit, much more strict than anything practiced anywhere else) when a few hundred cases were identified.
Above all, all of that provides zero evidence for any origin theory of the virus. The lab theory was present right from the beginning, which seems unlikely since these viruses don't typically spread without an intermediate host. At the very least, proponent of this theory should be able to provide evidence that bats or viral samples from bats were present in the lab before the outbreak. If I'm not mistaken, this lab isn't really top secret since some American scientist apparently worked there, so at least some paper trails should be recoverable.
> At the very least, proponent of this theory should be able to provide evidence that bats or viral samples from bats were present in the lab before the outbreak
This is described for both labs that were doing bat research in published, peer-reviewed research in international scientific journals, by the researchers themselves from Wuhan Institute of Virology and Wuhan Centers for Disease Control. Sometimes in great detail. There's a lot of evidence out there.
But I agree China's total response and/or numbers aren't really suggestive of either hypothesis.
Is that so clear? This Dr. Peter Daszak, described as a coronavirus expert who apparently worked with the lab, said (4:50~) "There was no viral isolate in the lab, there was no cultured virus (..) anything related to SARS-COV2 so it's just not possible."
Your assertion was, "At the very least, proponent of this theory should be able to provide evidence that bats or viral samples from bats were present in the lab before the outbreak".
Yes, it's clear they were working with live bats of the species that most scientists, even those who believe in the pangolin hypothesis, believe is the natural reservoir of SARS-CoV-2. Multiple papers published from BOTH Wuhan labs describe such bat research. The Wuhan CDC did so much live animal research that they employed collections expert by the name of Tian Jun-Hua, whose work collecting bats is described in a number of pre-pandemic media reports (including several times he quarantined himself after being exposed to gross amounts of bad urine or blood). You can see him doing his work, including live bat collections, in this (government produced) documentary about the Wuhan CDC: https://youtu.be/ovnUyTRMERI
But to your question, here's a paper from the Wuhan CDC lab published in a well-known international journal that I happened to have open:
Guo WP, Lin XD, Wang W, et al. "Phylogeny and Origins of Hantaviruses Harbored by Bats, Insectivores, and Rodents" PLoS pathogens
Before you stop reading and respond, "those are hantaviruses they were studying. Covid-19 is a coronavirus.", let me stop you. My hypothesis, like others who believe this is a possibility, has never been that they were studying SARS-CoV-2 specifically, but rather that the lab, or a lab-adjacent facility, was where the virus accidentally "spilled over" from bats to humans. That said, they were studying bat coronaviruses in both labs.
Also, the Wuhan Institute of Virology was doing live bat research. See the many articles about the Institute's "bat lady", Shi Zheng Li, and her research.
First issue with that is the Chinese response (lockdown) was not really swift at all. In fact, it was done about 2 months after patient 0, when there were hundreds of confirmed cases and filled hospitals. The impending outbreak was clear to experts including at least one from Hong Kong. If anything it was a rather slow reaction.
The worse responses from parts of Europe and US can't prove anything aside from their own incompetence. Other Asian countries were able to contain it with less time, information, warning or help.
Also, everyone knows the Chinese reported numbers are wildly inaccurate. Part of that is due to factors such as lack of testing capabilities. Add to that the various cover-ups throughout the process, especially at the beginning of the outbreak.
Regardless, it's clear how the containment was able to work. It was by locking down the entire city (blocking roads and all public transit, much more strict than anything practiced anywhere else) when a few hundred cases were identified.
Above all, all of that provides zero evidence for any origin theory of the virus. The lab theory was present right from the beginning, which seems unlikely since these viruses don't typically spread without an intermediate host. At the very least, proponent of this theory should be able to provide evidence that bats or viral samples from bats were present in the lab before the outbreak. If I'm not mistaken, this lab isn't really top secret since some American scientist apparently worked there, so at least some paper trails should be recoverable.