Because if the possibility turned out to be true, it would be extremely damaging at a social and political level. Not just on institutions, but on the psyche of people in general. I think everyone understands this at least on a subconscious level. There must not be any truth to it, because if there was, it would do too much damage.
So why would I want people to discuss something that could potentially have that kind of impact? Because I want people to face all of the possible consequences for their choices, not just pick and choose which ones they will consider and acknowledge.
This is teetering on the edge of conspiracy theory. People are and have been researching this possibility and so far haven't found anything big worth reporting. Just because there is no big news doesn't mean people are hiding it.
Remember when simply considering certain possibilities was condemned as proposing conspiracy theories?
"The Lancet letter (also referred to as Calisher et al. 2020) was a statement made in support of scientists and medical professionals in China fighting the outbreak of COVID-19, and condemning theories suggesting that the virus does not have a natural origin, which it referred to as "conspiracy theories".[1][2] The letter was published in The Lancet on February 19, 2020, and signed by 27 prominent scientists, gaining a further 20,000 signatures in a Change.org petition.[3][4] The letter generated significant controversy over the alleged conflicts of interest of its authors, and the chilling effect it had on scientists proposing that the COVID-19 lab leak theory be investigated."
In your assumption that they don't want to consider that possibility. You take your own projection as a given and then continue to argue as though it is true.
1) That's not what circular logic is. Circular logic would be if I said "they don't want to consider it because it's harmful and it's harmful because they don't want to consider it."
2) You asked me why I thought people don't want to consider that possibility, so it's pretty dishonest to now say the premise on which my opinion is based has no basis. If you were arguing in good faith, that's what you would have started with, eg: "People aren't avoiding it" not "Why do you think they are avoiding it."
So why would I want people to discuss something that could potentially have that kind of impact? Because I want people to face all of the possible consequences for their choices, not just pick and choose which ones they will consider and acknowledge.