The initial cases of covid 19 cluster around the wet market. The lab is in another part of the city.

If it were a lab leak then we’d expect the initial cases to cluster around the lab, and to show up in those who had contact with lab workers.

Nobody considered the lab as a source because the basic epidemiological evidence doesn’t support it.

By that argument, we'd expect the first major clusters outside Asia to appear at airports or seaports, since the virus couldn't have been introduced anywhere else. They didn't, instead appearing in nursing homes, choir practices, and other locations where it spread particularly fast to patients who were particularly likely to seek medical attention.

There is no reason to believe it's possible to determine the point of introduction with such granularity from initial epidemiological data. The form of modeling behind these geographic claims shows no history of correct predictions, making them essentially unfalsifiable.

The misleading claims that you're repeating here are exactly those promoted by the scientific press, including both the highest-impact peer-reviewed journals and popular outlets like Scientific American. If you are willing to entertain the possibility that they'd misinform you and seek sources outside that bubble, then I believe you'll see that yourself.

Because people don't commute around the city? Or come into contact with other people who do? Also, you're assuming that the 'initial' cases were actually the first cases. You don't know that for sure.

> The initial cases of covid 19 cluster around the wet market.

I remember a few years ago seeing a map of the raw data that led to the wet market conclusion: While it was in the area, but they only got it to be the main cluster by ignoring like half of the data points. I don't think the earliest confirmed cases even came from there. It was far more likely the first "superspreader" event than the origin.