This article already starts with a false dichotomy: "I missed the furious initial skirmish in what’s become the Long Discourse Wars over the idea that the SARS-CoV-2 virus came from the Wuhan Institute of Virology rather than originating naturally in bats."
Those aren't conflicting hypotheses. If you're having a "war" over that question you need a cold shower and to go offline for a bit. If the institute was somehow involved in spreading the virus, the simplest story is still that they got it from bats. No matter what anyone tells you, there is zero evidence that any part of the virus is engineered (and it isn't even entirely clear what such evidence would look like, in general!).
Either way, no new hard information has become available. The only thing that has changed is we've gone from pure, wild speculation based on the mere existence of the Wuhan virology institute, to wild speculation paired with some suggestive, anecdotal reports that need to be investigated further.
I would agree that this has somewhat changed the probabilities that we should assign to different hypotheses about the origins of the virus, but it's way too early to have strong convictions.
In the absence of any evidence, and in the heated climate of early 2020, it was and will always have been the correct call to ignore the speculation about how the virus might have come from the Wuhan virology institute.
At the present time, there's nothing you can do except hope that more facts will come to light at some point in the future, even if that's somewhat disappointing. Jumping on the story because it's so juicy and fits so great with "China bad" preconceptions is totally unnecessary.