> And that ... Theory about the lockdowns supposedly not being because of the virus but to hide a larger financial crisis/weath reallocation is spreading quite quickly at least at far as I can tell.

Maybe you think you can mention "that ... theory" without endorsing it in any way. I say that even mentioning this completely bogus garbage in a way that doesn't say that it's completely bogus garbage is effectively endorsing it. That's just the way communication systems work, unfortunately.

I'm not implying that you believe "that ... theory". I am saying that it's essentially insane, has no credibility, and is spreading only because people mention it in this sort of "offhand" way ("oh, I didn't mean anything").