Nonsense. There were plenty of arguments from the very beginning for the lab leak theory. The alternative "bat cave" hypothesis had plenty of implausiblies (e.g. huge distance) and was far from being "proven".
And the fact the virus not only was extremely well adapted towards humans, but also is more adapted towards human's than other species. Nothing about SARS-2 is typical.
I mean I get it, lots of people's careers/reputations are on the line so it's hard to accept, but it is vital we do.
Do we have that for HCoV-HKU1?
We can be better than this... cmon.
Anyway, your argument here seems circular: Academics must not take the lab leak theory seriously, because only non-academics discuss it, because academics don't take the lab leak theory seriously.
The lab theory will be taken seriously when there will be serious evidences. If they exist they will come out. Believing in conspiracies because enough people believe in them without any actual, tangible, verifiable evidence is worrying.
The option "intensive farming+poverty+open market full of crap+random bats, all in extremely unsanitary conditions" seems a way better theory, needing way less evidence (also hard to acquire in this case), if you compare it to the random lab doing experiments full of incompetent researchers.