The premise should be up for debate but we shouldn't accept the implication that because a lab in China leaked the virus it is moral to attack Chinese looking people in the street. You are effectively accepting the racist's reasoning if you ignore the implication and devote your energy to attacking their premise. I see this over and over again. Someone says A can't be true when A is a statement of fact because a group will make the argument A => B where B is something they find morally repugnant. When it comes to statements of fact you are much better arguing over A => B than hoping facts about the world conveniently line up with your moral conclusions.