Sort:  

Agreed, but this isn't anywhere close to that. If these things are permanent then it would be a big problem.

The balance of state power and individual freedom needs to be constantly flexible as required. To have it set rigidly one way or another is not possible, and I would think a disaster.

So, at the moment, the state power is in very very slight ascendancy (the penalties are not very harsh at all in comparison to what they could be and are mostly requests for co-operation). There will be a time for push back... And these restrictions affect people in a more demonstrable way than encryption, media and digital restrictions and 'oversight', so they will be much more resented if they stay past their usefulness.

There's also the undocumented impact of these "co-operation requests", which rises the cost of living, and for people doing business - masks, additional sanitiser, those useless stickers on the ground... :P

Yep, agreed. With the disproportionate impact on different levels of income. This entire situation does bring into the question about how society and the economy works on a fundamental level.

Such as the idea of unpaid labour not being priced in the economy (carers, non working parents...) and the complete disconnect between incomes (economic pricing) and 'contribution' to society (teachers, nurses...).

It is all passingly interesting, it would be a pity to return to the earlier model of maximise personal profit, minimise personal expenses.

Socialise the losses, privatise the profits, classic neo-liberalism. :)