Why was it a shocker though? I saw plenty of people in the real world genuinely excited about these technologies, with little resentment or suspicion about them
Theres several different versions of that sort of sentiment:
There are people who are always in the 'if you've got nothing to hide then whats the problem?' camp anyway. And people who occasionally have one foot in that camp but not always, mixed feelings etc.
There are people who assume that there is so much overt and covert surveillance of this broad type already, so much data already, that a new overt form doesnt really change the equation.
There are the opposite of those, who may be a bit naive about what we already face, what data is already collected, and therefore react especially strongly against the suggestion of introducing any because they think of it as a brand new phenomenon.
There are people who will accept new overt forms of surveillance if the particular circumstances seem to justify it. Especially if its an opt-in system, seen as offering rewards for those choosing to 'do the right thing' etc.
There are those who will oppose on principal regardless of any particular details and justifications.
And probably plenty of people sort of wobbled between different combinations of the above over time, depending on factors such as how bad things were looking on the pandemic front at a particular moment, how much the government were over-promising at different moments, whether there had been any scandals about the use of the data, the people profiting from it etc.
There was a way in which we were able to test whether attitudes towards this stuff were affected more permanently by the pandemic. Even at a time when more people than we might normally expect were onboard with some of these things in response to the virus, attempts by the authorities to introduce a new system for sharing patient records with a broader set of entities including commercial ones still went down really quite badly and shit loads of people were opting out.