Oh, some addition, which is not directly related to your question above but I have already typed it, so here I go:)

A business enterprise cannot even say that it wants to prevent social unrest, because no matter what it decides, this is exactly what will remain. If it says "anyone can shop here", the supporters of the measures may go against it, if it says "only shop with proof of health", it incurs the displeasure of others.

So what is being done? They try it out and see how far it gets them. Behind this lies the assumption of whether one or the other interest group could be a majority or a minority.

It seems to me that so many interests are mixed up here that, as always, if you try to please everyone, in the end you can't please anyone.

Those who chose to keep the crisis in abeyance are basically watching the people divide and they may have taken bets on who will win. Insofar as the people go along quite voluntarily with the quite clear intention of those in power, it can always be said on the part of MPs that "we made it optional and not forced, the people decided for themselves".

In fact, it must be said that this is not entirely untrue. However, there is a certain perfidy in this, because the ignorance of ordinary people with regard to written legislation, just like their dependence in their employment relationships, hardly allows for anything like an intensive, multi-perspective view. Especially not of a philosophical kind.

Fortunately, human beings are less predictable than one would like to claim or would have. To reduce the unpredictability and uncontrollability, there are forces driving automation, because as soon as a human being does not have to decide who gets access to where, any form of possible relationship is disturbed to impossible.

Then the game begins. Again, people will find ways to trick the automation tool, create fakes and so on. People who have lived long enough under totalitarian regimes acquire a resistance over time and do not obey what the authorities expect. A more covert resistance takes place. People simply don't give a damn about their government and don't care about democracy any more. Where this conflict seemed unresolvable, people stop following the hierarchy and become accustomed to distrust and suspicion of those "above them". The rulers are then basically alone on their field and can pretend to have importance - of course they continue to play the field. We all know this from human history.