people that support the lab leak theory aren't necessarily saying that it isn't natural, they're saying it's possible the virus was being used for gain of function research, and that it was "leaked" accidentally due to poor hygiene. So it probably is natural, in fact I think it is, but it also probably was being studied in Wuhan and was leaked.
Yes, that's a different question. I was addressing the points made in the OP about the likelihood of the virus being created in a lab — apologies, I wasn't sufficiently clear. I am perhaps also guilty of seeing a stark division between a) naturally-occurring and naturally-transmitted, and b) evil secret bioweapon... when as ever the true picture is more nuanced. And history teaches us that we should certainly never discount the possibility of something happening due to human ineptitude.
If it was a
naturally-occurring virus that was under study, and escaped accidentally - that's certainly plausible and, in the absence of a smoking
pangolin gun from the wet market, it's certainly an avenue that should be investigated. I don't know whether this is more or less likely than the wet market theory. There are reports of sick staff at the institute just prior to the outbreak, but given the overlap in symptoms between CV19 and other more common seasonal viruses (including of course other coronaviruses), it may be difficult to determine the truth. And this is especially true in a nation where the government can be so secretive and heavy-handed. I might still lean towards the wet market theory, on the basis that if the Chinese government knew that a) it was a lab leak, and b) specifically involving gain-of-function work, then they would certainly have been aware of the potential consequences, and would likely have acted with characteristic lightning-speed to shut everything down, not only news suppression, but physical containment. Whereas instead they acted more as if they weren't really sure what was going on, as might be the case if the lab were not involved. But this is speculation; there's no firm evidence either way.
The problem I see with respect to what you say about science is that its name is being used to avoid debate, when science should be just the opposite: open to debate.
Definitely. Preventing investigation of a potential Chinese government cover-up because it's "racist" is the same as banning criticism of Israel's murder of Palestinians because it's "antisemitic". Science should be utterly impartial, a mechanism for establishing truth at all times. Of course where international politics is involved, that's not always the case.