Thanks for asking, because I think that was the most significant outcome here. Without confidence in how the government is using data, the public can't trust it.
In this instance, the fact that this was mandated and there was for sure a lack of clarity from the government to the people as to how this data was being used, beyond the idea that we're in a pandemic where there's a crisis and therefore you must do X.... What happens when there are already issues with trust is that this accelerates the distrust. This was so unnecessary, because some people like this app, and if they like it and they feel comfortable using it and they can consent, perfect. If someone is not that person, they need a great path to access public service too. The failure to create that path just really inflamed this trust and it was a very difficult point in time.
We can see it's a completely unnecessary loss of trust and it happened. As it was happening, it was shocking to me that—I don't know how much people here saw—there were concerns about how this data could or couldn't be used because it wasn't clear, and this accelerated and was fomenting distrust. That's the word to use here.
The obvious antidote is that you build alternatives for people. This lack of investment to make sure people were comfortable.... To Matt's point earlier, if you want to get into good digital service delivery, you're going to get there by building trust and bringing people along with you. You don't force it; you open it up. If you like the option, you use it and then you continue along.