That depends on what you decide to do about it.

1) I've seen people call for a ban on research at all on BSL-3+ pathogens.

2) If you "accept that it was a lab leak" you are implicitly accepting that it was not a natural event - which is going to cause you to focus more on long-tailed, low-probability events like lab leaks, and less on zoonotic transmission events.

Which if you're wrong would be a serious problem.

Better for whom? Certainly not for the labs. It's far better for the labs to draw their own conclusions from the leak, privately, at their own pace. Also, there's a significant financial disincentive: funding for gain of function research will be severely impacted by recognizing the lab leak as the most plausible explanation.

Right now I'd conclude that you can accidentally release things from labs with virtually no consequences. Just make sure that a similar virus exists naturally somewhere on the same continent, don't share any internal records, don't let your staff talk to the press, and you have plausible deniability.