Some people interpreting “lab leak” to mean deliberately designed, others to mean deliberately released, others to mean an accident involving a natural research virus.
So yeah this whole conversation will continue to go nowhere because in reality it is full of conspiracy theorists who make the conversation impossible to have.
Why should anybody believe otherwise? Principle of charity? Please.
Wuhan Institute of Virology did actively contribute to the development of the Vero vaccine by Sinopharm.
Regarding the premise, there's no reason to believe that a lab working on coronaviruses (quite common) that did not happen to contribute directly to a successful vaccine development effort (profoundly uncommon) was necessarily working on a bioweapon.
FWIW, there are ~59 operational BSL-4 labs in the world, and only a BSL-3 is necessary to work on potentially airborne diseases like coronaviruses. According to this study[1] of published research papers, there are probably about 150 BSL-3 labs in the United States alone. Are those all bioweapon programs because they didn't contribute to the vax development programs?
[1]: https://cset.georgetown.edu/publication/mapping-biosafety-le...
The most dangerous interpretation of "lab leak" is the one backed by the most evidence - that they were artificially enhancing viruses so they could develop vaccines against them. The Pfizer guy who got caught on camera by Project Veritas said they were considering doing the same thing.
Selling people vaccines for viruses the scientists created specifically to create vaccines for, is about the worst conflict of interest you can imagine and one with global implications, not just for US/China relations.
While this is true, at this point we have evidence that even the highest level security lab can have lab leak with devastating results.
The main problem is not that, but that people can't really talk about it publicly, as the rules should be stricter (for example an international body should be checking the procedures of other countries...the problem is not with the rules, but not enough verification of keeping the rules).