Your treating the lab leak hypothesis as near fact is exactly the kind of bullshit we need less of.

There are not "a few (orders of) magnitude" in probability between these hypotheses.

That would at least need to be 1% vs. 99% and that's being charitable.

What we need is an education system that teaches people to simultaneously entertain conflicting hypotheses and update the belief in them as information becomes available.

Your post is the perfect example of what that doesn't look like.

(Footnote: There are a number of examples in history for pathogens leaking from labs, and for zoonotic origins, so having such strongly biased priors under poor evidence in either direction really just shows that you want to believe something.)

This. You might argue given only the information that the pandemic exists and the city of origin of the first cases, it's reasonable to prefer the lab leak hypothesis, but there's a lot more evidence around than that, and most of it favors the zoonotic origin. Lab leak isn't completely ruled out (especially versions of the theory where it was a zoonotic virus that was released, as opposed to a modified one), but it's far from the obvious favourite given the evidence.