Not sure how you reached that conclusion. Collaborators from different institutions collaborate on research papers all the time while having no access to each others' 'safety logs'. Why would that be shared?
>Instead they say that everything is normal.
Which they obviously have no way of knowing, given that they are not on site, the research institute is in a secretive authoritarian country, and the implications for being 'responsible' for such a lab leak are monumental for such a regime.
>There is a weird double standard here of ignoring data that goes against this hypothesis and interpreting things that happened for every single other zoonosis in the world to be indicative of a lab escape. Such as, for example, three people out of six hundred presenting with symptoms of seasonal illnesses in the appropriate season.
The double standard is the exact opposite - flippantly dismissing the lab leak hypothesis without examination, on one side; a call to treat it on par with the purely zoonotic hypothesis and a recognition that neither hypothesis is close to being definitively proven, on the other.