I'm not going to watch a 54 minute video. Turns out I might listen to (most of) it while I do other things though. TLDR; the science is not all that compelling. The video is rather like the presentation of evidence for WMD in Iraq from old asterisks Cheney; you can make it seem compelling by removing every bit of equivocation or counter evidence. It still may have come from a lab, but it isn't anywhere near proven.
1) No full tracing of origin is to be expected. In the early stages you're looking only at data only from cases serious enough to have been treated in hospital for pneumonia, which make up a small number of covid19 cases. Non severe cases would be treated as if it were flu or the cold, ie stay home for a bit or tough it out, forget about it a week later. Since only a small proportion require hospitalisation you'd have the large majority of cases being silent ones making tracing extremely hard.
2) Assuming an animal origin bats are probably the ultimate source, but may not be the proximal source.
3) 100% gene sequence similarity may mean that it's under very strong selective pressure, ie the env protein and virus simply won't function properly with significant alterations. There's a reason we still share 50% of our genes with bananas, as an illustration.
4) Natural strains don't infect humans but it has the spike protein of SARS (1) which did, therefore... what? SARS did infect humans, it just had very low transmission rates. 'Natural' animal viruses most definitively do infect humans from time to time- if they want to leave out SARS because sinophobia there's also near relative MERS (ex camellids) or the less related SIV which seems to have crossed into humans at least 11 (!) times in the creation of HIV. Or Ebola/ Marburg. All of which are ssRNA viruses.
5) No, bat coronavirus having spike proteins that can infect humans does not mean there's no intermediate host full stop, it means there doesn't have to be an intermediate host.
6) Meta: isn't it nice of the Chinese to have left all these breadcrumbs, and in articles to journals like Nature or Science to boot.
7) Yes, amazingly scientists do build viruses out of bits of other viruses to test what they do and have done for rather a long time. It's even a suggested (approved now?) mechanism for gene therapy in humans.
cool) No, that does not mean that sarscov2 is artificial. Classic non sequitor, we show this and that, therefore you can draw a conclusion that does not actually follow the data gained from this or that. You've already admitted that SARS1 infected humans and working in mice != working in humans.
9) My god, they experimented on mice! And planned to on primates! In a research lab! I'm, uh, flabbergasted at this, er, revelation. What next, some poor innocent fruitflies or a big toad?
10) Retrovirus that infects humans has similarity to another retrovirus that infects humans, that's... not exactly surprising.
11) Suspicious that the lab kept quiet- but I'd bet it would also be 'suspicious' if they said anything too.
12) And we're off into direct sinophobia not related to the coronavirus which I can't be bothered listening to for 15 minutes. Sheesh, I think the Chinese government are complete garbage but anyone naive enough to think that the US government isn't doing exactly the same sort of biological experiments is naive, and didn't watch the same video 5 minutes earlier.