> Because it's almost inherently conspiracy fodder, true or not.

No it's not! Reasonably minded persons consider this entirely plausible.

The way the conversation is being actively steered away from this topic is concerning.

> 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?

There's a huge difference. Each scenario has different lessons to learn, culpability, etc.