Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Now, realistically, it probably was not made in a lab. But it is not true that we know that.
It's impossible to prove that it was not grown in a lab, which is why the burden is to show that it _was_ grown in a lab. Until we have that, we shouldn't be sharing stories about how it _might_ have been grown in a lab.
It is extremely unlikely that the virus was grown in a lab, because it's unlikely anyone has the technology to create a virus quite like this one.
I presume you're not a big fan of conspiracy theories - well, a big part of where they come from is the media doing something similar to what you're complaining about, stating what might be true, as unequivocally true. It would also be interesting to know how much of the polarization in society can be attributed to the fantasy world the media projects into people's minds using these techniques.
Normally I wouldn't say anything, but you did pull a "well, actually" there, so out-pedantifying seems warranted if only for the humour of the situation.
Which is why the comment said "evidence" and not "proof".
Maybe the murder caught on camera is a lost identical twin, or victim of a very elaborate frame-up. The standard for conviction is beyong reasonable doubt. What is reasonable?
Maybe we have laws of physics wrong, and next tuesday sun will rise in the west, and Jesus rises from the dead. Again.
Do yoy trust governments and scientists? They used to claik smoking is a great way to get your essential vitamins.
Do you trust your own mind, because research has shown people can be manipulated into remembering things that never happened.
Ib radical doubt, the only thing you can proove is 'I think, therefore I am".
If you are asking me to proof a negative, that's virtually impossible.