This entirely depends on the total amount of theories. It also assumes the known theories cover all possible origins.

Saying COVID evolved from nature is sort of a catch all. It's like saying all possible theories in aggregate except for the lab leak theory.

For example: What are the chances of anyone but you winning the lottery? Quite high.

So when they say low confidence of the lab leak theory it most likely means it's a crap theory.

Our ability to prove a theory or not is entirely dependent on our ability to gather evidence for or against. How many other theories can be thought of is totally irrelevant.

Low confidence means inability to prove or disprove. That is it.

Edit: extrapolating further about this is just a Rorschach test.

This is just vocabulary. If you can't find evidence to support a theory confidently... I call it a crap theory.

Would you prefer to communicate without using words? I'm confused.

The argument is descending into one about the definition of "crap theory."

I have a low bar for crap theory. As long as it doesn't have evidence that confidently supports it, it's crap.

The other guy has a high bar for crap theory. A theory without any evidence, to him, is not crap.

It's like arguing over what temperature is hot and what temperature is cold. Pointless. An Eskimo has a different definition of cold and hot then say some guy who lives in a desert. Put them in the same place and let them debate about whether the current temp is hot or cold... That argument ends up being an argument about vocabulary. What is the definition of hot or cold?

Who fucking cares? That is my point.