I found NPR's report a clear, understandable summary of the review article. The review article linked from NPR's article goes into much more depth about the strength of evidence for the 3 main ideas (spillover from animals in markets, lab leak and intentional release) how SARS2 appeared; the review presents new, compelling evidence to support the market as being ground zero, while also presenting very technical details making lab involvement appear as speculation unsupported by facts. A quibble: the review article was co-authored by 20 additional experts besides the one NPR focused on as if he was a unique Sherlock Holmes I particularly liked NPR's concluding sentence: “But if new data comes to light tomorrow, his thinking may shift again, Worobey says. That, in many ways, is the way science works.” That seems like the way journalism ought to work: to present the available information and contextualize it

A data-driven analysis of where covid19 originated, that is heavily caveated.