People who can think and follow a line of reasoning should have a shot at considering the questions:

Did researchers actually discover the virus?

Did their proof fall short?

DID RESEARCHERS DO ENOUGH TO PROVE THE CORONAVIRUS EXISTS IN THE FIRST PLACE?

If someone says that, during the full moon three weeks ago, the moon suddenly turned gold, and then a strange squadron of giants passed across it, on their way to the ocean, do you think it might be a good idea to find out whether, three weeks ago, there was a full moon? Might that be a basic starting point?

That's what I'm doing. Checking up to see whether there was a full moon.

A rational researcher, at the CDC, if one actually existed, would say, upon hearing of a possible outbreak in the city of Wuhan: "Let's see the proof that a new virus is responsible, is the causative agent."

What kind of proof would he be asking for?

First, he would want to know, "Do researchers there have an actual biological specimen of this new virus? Do they have the real thing?"