(Not sure if this is the right SE for this question. I'm asking this here, because I'm looking for a biological answer, if one exists.)
This (potentially very naive) question is inspired by this news article: Bats for sale at Indonesia's wildlife market despite virus warning
Bats, rats and snakes are still being sold at an Indonesian market known for its wildlife offerings, despite a government request to take them off the menu over fears of a link to the deadly coronavirus.
Why would the government request to take the meat of these animals off the market? Even if they're linked to the coronavirus, the virus presumably can be killed by cooking the meat prior to consumption. After all, protein denatures well before 100 degrees celsius, and once it denatures the organism should die. Conceivably the virus could affect the handlers of these animals prior to their being cooked, but not the consumers.
Some paragraphs later in the article illustrate my confusion:
Restaurateur Lince Rengkuan -- who serves bats including their heads and wings stewed in coconut milk and spices -- says the secret is preparation.
"If you don't cook the bat well then of course it can be dangerous," she said.
"We cook it thoroughly and so far the number of customers hasn't gone down at all."
Which is effectively what I've been thinking, but:
"We're also urging people not to consume meat from animals suspected to be carriers of a fatal disease," said Ruddy Lengkong, head of the area's government trade and industry agency.
How are these two seemingly-contradictory positions reconciled?