I think you are confused... though a lot of people are. You are mixing ethical ideas with science, but getting confused about science. You are not the only one here, a half of the posters seem to have a similar confusion.
I certainly agree with the ethical ideas... but when they are justified by poorly understood science, the obvious fallacy of many will always be stating that IF the scientific ideas are wrong, then the ethical ideas are nonsensical too... which is not the case.
It's as if we were saying that (human) murder is wrong because it may spread diseases... which is hardly a good argument against murder.
Not true... the exploitation or lack of exploitation would not really make a change... Viruses are not ethical creatures (they are not even creatures actually). Animals can carry viruses which may be infectious for humans (or not), that's independent of how animals are treated.
The infamous dengue virus carried by mosquitoes is pandemic in Argentina, mostly in the north-east and the center of the country.... Whilst the Hantavirus carried by rodents is pandemic in the South... mosquitoes and rodents are not "exploited" and their lives would actually be identical if we all decided to go vegan.
False... the structure of the so called "wet markets" does not exist here, but small and somehow improvised markets where they sell the strangest animals as food are extremely typical in the North East and North West (of Argentina)... Yes, you can find markets where they sell snakes, capybaras, oysters, wild pigs, llamas... and only God knows what else. Specially true in the North East.
Not true again... Imagine that a virus is somehow like a key... a key that needs a keyhole. MOST animal viruses simply don't fit into the "keyholes" that we have in our cells. It's not that we became immune, we simply can't get infected.
i.e, one of my cats recently died because of a Coronavirus, it was during the quarantine (yes, not Covid-19... there are lots of animal coronaviruses). The specific coronavirus that killed my cat can't infect a human, nor it can infect a dog or a mice or a roach or a snake or an ant or an elephant... its key can't get into any of keyholes of those other animals. It was not a process of immunization, it is simply that the virus does not have the right key as to attack most animals, even if it's a huge problem when it arrives to a cat.
Which disease can we get if we eat a well cooked dog or cat? I don't know any disease that we can get if we do it.
So... is it a scientific concern or an ethical concern?
I have excellent reasons for NOT eating a dog or a cat, but none of them is scientific, but ethical.
(in the same way that I do not know any scientific reasons that makes it "wrong" to murder a human.... even if anyone who is not a psychopath does not need a scientific reasons, because it's an ethical problem).
I think it's a mistake to try to find scientific justifications for what is ethically right... because in the long run you may end up finding out that science has no evidence that eating a cat or a dog is "wrong" or "unhealthy"... and yet such thing is not something that justifies the action of doing it (because it's an ethical problem, not a medical one).
And sorry for going against your arguments, I think we both agree on the ethical side of it... we probably disagree on the medical side of the issue, but I don't think the medical side of the issue is even relevant (in the same way that we do not look for medical explanations about why murdering other persons can be unhealthy for us).