There's good evidence -- most or all of it circumstantial -- to support the idea that the virus escaped from a lab. But it's definitely not a settled issue. I would not be surprised if this theory turned out to be mistaken. As a layperson, I'd put it at something like a 60/40 proposition. In other words, I lean in favor of the lab leak theory, but it's really just a lean.
The main issue IMO is the way this was covered for a year and change. The lab leak theory was completely plausible this time last year. The problem is that for many people, it's hard to process a nuanced statement like "This thing may have happened, and there's some non-conclusive evidence saying that it might have, but then again it might not have happened too and we should really think of this as just one of several reasonable theories." If the average person struggles with that sort of thing, fine, I get it.
But professionals like political leaders, journalists, and the leaders of major health organizations should live and breathe this sort of thing. They should have absolutely no problem whatsoever handling this kind of nuance. And (collectively) they completely failed. Everybody was so worried about granting Tom Cotton a talking point that they took a very hard, completely unnuanced stand on a foggy empirical issue. Their certainty was based on theology, not evidence. And they spent a year bullying people and making fun of people who looked at the evidence.
, Politico: 
