But when you take specific bits of evidence out of the great soup surrounding this and highlight them, it's really easy to draw the wrong conclusions, or to get the feeling that this bit of evidence simply due to familiarity is more trustworthy than some other evidence. And we also have biases towards evidence we understand, which kind of makes sense, but is also a problem, as non-experts...
If we try to make a rough calculation from an unknowledgeable starting position, it might be more reasonable to say "just as likely to come from each 1M+ city as to come from each lab [of which there is one]". Then, if we didn't know the geographic origin, the lab probability is ~1% ( = 1/(100 cities + 1 lab)), but knowing the geographic start point you'd get 50%
P(this lab given Wuhan) = P(Wuhan given this lab) * P(lab) / P(Wuhan)
P(this lab given Wuhan) = 1 [this lab is in Wuhan!] * (1/101) / (2/101)
There's nothing ill-founded, it was then and is now the most reasonable and plausible explanation for the outbreak. You can do the same back of the envelope calculation today that I did 2 years ago, and nothing has made it less valid:
1. There's 100 cities in PRC with >1 million inhabitants.
2. There's one (1) lab in PRC doing work on bat viruses.
The probability that the outbreak happened in the same city as the one with the lab by pure coincidnce is therefore about 1%.
That's not a proof, that's not a definite argument, that's just evaluating how plausible the hypothesis is. You can tweak the values to be more charitable if you want, say note that Wuhan is a large city and we shouldn't count smaller ones, or point out that there might be a few mor labs doing the same kind of work but with less prominence. That merely lowers the lab leak's plausibility to 50%. I.e very plausible.