The nuanced finding suggests the agency believes the totality of evidence makes a lab origin more likely than a natural origin. But the agency’s assessment assigns a low degree of confidence to this conclusion, suggesting the evidence is deficient, inconclusive or contradictory.
I think one difference it makes, to answer your question, is that unsubstantiated claims like this tend to spread, virus like. Especially when pedalled by presidents and official government agencies. Many governments handled the pandemic predictably awfully, but this false narrative can have dangerous consequences, too. I’m worried about the number of times I’ve seen ‘plandemic’ spoken about. It gives me the impression that simply through repetition the meme grew stronger. But now it’s being echoed by_official statespeople. _