It's not as though they've not had time to properly assess how the data is to be used, stored and protected.
The point is about (not) following well thought through procedures and debate about the measures that are introduced and these are one of the fifty(!) emergency regulations that have apparently been introduced by the government since early March - without debate, without scrutiny and without thought.
But they won't.
Are they going to 'enforce' collection of this data? I very much doubt it. Yes, there may be a few who fall foul and have PCNs issued but it's not going to be rigorously checked soo I'm not sure that it will be able to be relied upon any more than the data which may be being gathered already without the legal threats.
I don't think this is an accurate assessment of the current situation (the alarming rate again bit) or the actions being taken in response to the current situation, i.e. this is unlikely to have much of an effect apart from widen the data net and get people even more used to handing over their data on demand to an ever increasing number of business types - how long before it becomes necessary in every single business in to which we might go, e.g. supermarkets?
If this were a comprehensive, well-thought out, well-regulated process that had been properly debated (in the months that they've had to do it) then perhaps one could simply disregard the issues that come with it but it isn't and, as such, we shouldn't. And the reason for that? Because what is becoming normal now will likely remain quite normal (even in an informal way) after any situation where it might be relevant and necessary has passed.
Those running this government are absolutely wedded to the idea of the importance and value (to them and to businesses) of 'big data' and they are unlikely to want to let such an opportunity pass.