It tickles the part of human psychology that looks for threat agents, rather than just threats.
Lots of us here on the more analytical side might have trouble understanding that fully, especially if we relate to Fauci's early 2020 statements which more or less amount to "it doesn't really matter which plausible origin turns out to be the case, either way the task in front of us is to figure out how to mitigate the damage and address the virus."
It could have been a lab leak. It could have been (and now looks more likely to have been [0][1]) natural spillover from increasing contact with zoonotic reservoirs. What's the difference?
The answer to that question on a practical level is re-thinking safety protocols for related research (and perhaps a conversation about the risks of conducting viral research vs the risks of viral ignorance).
On a less practical level, though, the answer is that it prompts inhabiting a narrative where they key issue is human threat agents.
The irony is that many of the people who choose that as the most important thing to pay attention seem slower to consider how human threat agents might use that narrative.
[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/11/18/coronavirus... [1] https://www.science.org/content/article/why-many-scientists-...