So you want freedom of speech to be able to express your own beliefs, but don’t think others should be able to express their disagreements with your beliefs? People have a right to call you a conspiracy theorist. They have a right to demonize your views. It’s part of freedom of speech. If you want to extend social responsibility to limit freedom of speech for the sake of social cohesion (“There's no need to divide the societies into more and more chunks”), you have to also extend social responsibility to limit individualism in the face of a pandemic. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. You can argue against being called a conspiracy theorist, you can argue with people who hold opposing views, but to claim that you value freedom of speech then say “You can’t call me a conspiracy theorist” is inconsistent. If you believe in freedom of speech, of course people can call you a conspiracy theorist.
I also find it ironic that you claim that “you'll be categorized right away once you speak your mind”. You’re being reductionist by grouping all of your opponents as people with reductionist opinions. It’s like people can’t see your views for what they really are and reject them.
I am fully aware of many opposing viewpoints. I don’t think they’re all conspiracy theories, nor that they’re all based on misinformation. Some people are educated, but I still wholeheartedly disagree with them, and still think their views lead to criminal negligence. A person can argue against my claim that their views are criminally negligent, but they can’t tell me that I can’t say they’re criminally negligent. And the fact that some scientists agree with them is irrelevant. There are also many scientists who agree with me. Not every scientist in the world has to have the same opinion on a topic for me to have a strong opinion on said topic. I can have strong conviction and at the same time be willing to engage in rational discourse and change my opinion—the two are not mutually exclusive.