I think the conspiracy theorist label is associated with common patterns (believing in a cover up in cases where there's no incentive / the cover up would be more expensive than the crime / the evidence would be impossible to cover up, etc) but in this case these patterns don't apply.

The lab leak theory was extremely plausible even assuming no secret conspiracy at all. Lab leaks do happen, that lab did do gain of function research, the State did shut down investigations, etc.

You might be surprised how many things labeled conspiracy theories have strong evidence, incentives, etc. but get scoffed at as kooky impossibilities nonetheless - like the lab leak theory.

Out how many conspiracy theories end up being right.

I think when it comes to conspiracy theories the two heuristics to use are:

1.) Do they have an incentive to conspire?

2.) Do they have the ability to conspire?

Where both are true I think conspiracies exist every where, often to such an extent it just gets labelled as corruption rather than conspiracy.