Corona Virus was predicted?

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/coronavirus-dean-koontz-eyes-of-darkness-conspiracy-wuhan-china-symptoms-a9364386.html?amp

How is this possible? any explanation as to how the author possibly got some things right in his novel? I have read some explanation online that he only got the name right, not the characteristics whatsoever of the virus. But predicting even just the name of the virus and the city where it came from is extremely RARE. That alone made me wonder about that. 

is this another level of conspiracy theory or what? 

A general rule: don't forget the count the misses, not just the hits. Remember that there are ~8 billion people on this planet, hundreds of millions of works of fiction each with hundreds of details that can be construed as "predictions." Statistically speaking, just about everything should be "predicted" to some degree by someone—especially if you go back far enough.

Now I will speculate outside my area of expertise: The city in China is known for "animal markets" where animals are traded and butchered on the streets—a place ripe for disease. The name "Coronavirus" has been around for a long time -  The word was introduced by a group of virologists as a short article "Coronaviruses" in the "News and Views" section of Nature (vol. 220, no. 5168, November 16, 1968, p. 650) As a writer myself, I would certainly do research and use as many facts as possible to make my story more believable.

IMO, the fallacies are likely in the interpretation of the stories, when they are judged by current knowledge and reframed to emphasize what they got right.

Multiple writers speculated on nuclear weapons, but none actually predicted them.  If, someday, the process of anti-gravity is learned, there will be a similar look into old sci-fi to see who first imagined and told a consistent story about apples rising, when they separated from trees.

I happened to have heard of some of the nuclear-weapons-predicting stories, but had to look it up to find the best of the earliest came from HG Wells  https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/162986/which-sci-fi-work-first-showed-nuclear-weapons

I believe the correlation of new information with old speculations has to be carefully considered before anointing it as prediction.

I don't think there is a fallacy here, a question is asked how much evidence is there to indicate a conspiracy theory.

To claim that this is a superstitious prediction would be an Unfalsifiability Fallacy. Because you cant falsify it or show it to be true or false. So, its a faith based position which might also be an appeal to faith fallacy. 

If you make 1000s of predictions, a few are bound to be right due to mathematical probability (especially with billions people though out time all writing information). However, if you ignore all of the ones that did not pan out, while only focusing on the one (or few) that did then I would say you are engaging in a cherry picking fallacy.