[Stevvo]

"the central claim is that 5 potential restriction binding sites versus 2 means that SARS-CoV2 is non natural"

That claim is not in the paper at all. The argument is based on the length of longest fragment and could apply to any number of restriction binding sites.

"the evidence for the wet market origin is trivialized."

It's a statistical analysis of viral genomes. The wet market evidence is unrelated.

Your third point is arguing in favor of ignorance and defeatism. "there is no clear and obvious way of systematically reducing risk" because we do not understand the origin. If we did, there may very well be; e.g. restrict trade in civet cats. Simple actions like this have controlled pandemics in the past.