I can go either way on this but I do have some issues with the first article. It pushes some thoughts as strong evidence that are really assumptions on the author’s behalf.
1) I know for a fact that the Chinese (and a lot of militaries) are smart enough to that they use imperfect attacks in a number of venues (bio, electronic warfare, etc) so as to not be instantly identifiable as a military attack and thus trigger active countermeasures. So saying that an imperfect binder with human receptors is strong evidence of natural origin is a dangerous statement.
2) They claim that it would show a lineage from one of 20 existing lab sequences if it is a grown or military tool. But if it was military, it is highly likely that we would not know about it because those sequences would be protected and not available to foreign doctors.
3) Their conclusions are inconclusive and support what I’m saying. The Chinese have destroyed or actively obstructed research into the origins so we will never know. These authors are making assumptions to get to your Occam’s Razor but it isn’t that simple, especially when the Chinese government has been so active in obscuring the provenance. If you want to consider Occam’s Razor, you must include their actions in your decision.