The problem with this sort of crude statistical analysis is that it assumes humans and coronaviruses are evenly distributed across the earth's surface. This obviously isn't the case. Wuhan is a densely populated major population centre and transit/commerce hub with a population larger than the Bay Area, and the [large] surrounding region supplying produce to Wuhan's markets includes rural areas noted for animal coronaviruses, including the suspected origin of SARS. Which isn't to say there's no statistical reason to consider the lab and the outbreak might be linked, but back of the envelope maths which ignores the existence of cities is the opposite of a compelling case.
No to mention that the outbreak is the first known one, not the origin which - if not spread from a lab - is likely somewhere considerably more rural and less likely to attract attention. Took 15 years to trace the probable natural origin of SARS in China (1000km away from the first city outbreak, 1km from a neighbouring village) which wasn't as highly politicised. The subsequent lab-originated local SARS outbreaks were traced to people associated with the labs more easily (though again, they weren't as highly politicised).
These viruses come from animals, not humans. The probability of rural infection is probably much higher, as you said. So cut it in half, it's more like a 0.01% chance.
Yes, if you completely ignore the probability of detection being much higher when the virus reaches an urban area, and the reference in my post to the original SARS virus being traced to an "origin" in an urban area 1000 miles from its animal source, much like the MERS virus was identified in Jeddah and not amongst camel herders in the desert, you can make up new estimates which also bear no resemblance to the actual underlying probabilities.
No to mention that the outbreak is the first known one, not the origin
Epidemiologists conducted an extensive investigation to trace the origin. The probability of detection is not higher in the city. So I'm afraid that's incorrect. You're not making any sense here. You're disputing both the lab leak theory and the wet market theory? You're just shifting the goalposts to fit your argument.
Epidemiologists conducted an extensive investigation to trace the origin and also didn't find any connection whatsoever with the lab. I'm not sure why every theory that doesn't involve the lab is forced to conform to the assumption that epidemiologists know everything there is to know about the source of COVID, something epidemiologists themselves didn't claim when identifying the wet market as the initial superspreader event, most likely from animals or traders originating from unknown regions outside the city.
Of course a novel coronavirus - especially one that does not produce severe or unusual symptoms in most infected people - is more likely to be identified when it becomes established in a city where it spreads quickly to many people with access to good healthcare, not a rural area where there are fewer people and more basic healthcare which infected people are less likely to use. This is why the outbreak of the original SARS novel coronavirus was identified in an urban area 1000 miles from the suspected zoonotic source of the virus, not in the neighbouring village whose unidentified inhabitants (or animal produce) most likely transmitted it to the city. It is not me "shifting the goalposts" that you continue to pretend I didn't point that out in my first post.
No to mention that the outbreak is the first known one, not the origin which - if not spread from a lab - is likely somewhere considerably more rural and less likely to attract attention. Took 15 years to trace the probable natural origin of SARS in China (1000km away from the first city outbreak, 1km from a neighbouring village) which wasn't as highly politicised. The subsequent lab-originated local SARS outbreaks were traced to people associated with the labs more easily (though again, they weren't as highly politicised).