I'm in a big American city, and I remember that until the online kids and snarky liberals started moralizing about mask protocol, there wasn't as much resistance to wearing masks among right-wing crazies.
I remember when there was that controversy about 5G networks interfering with bird migration patterns and meteorology, but as the fringe conspiracy crowd started spinning up crazy theories about how 5G was going to brainwash or sterilize or force-feminize people over the airwaves or whatever it was, most people I knew stopped talking about it, seemed to forget that they had ever thought it concerning. It reminded me of the time people were worried about pollutants causing hormonal changes in indicator species, and then Alex Jones started talking about how "they're turning the frogs gay" and the meaningful version of that discourse vanished too.
I view the same kind of thing as happening here, as well as a lot of other places. It's made me wary of the sport of finding what crazy things my political enemies believe to make fun of them, because it seems like the net effect of this is creating "opposite" erroneous beliefs with no evidence
The Law always provokes its opposite.
For some definitions of "law" this is probably true. But I think under the more general principle it's much more likely to happen than not. If you look at the law as any set of rules, you find that they generally accuse you (it is not the subjunctive mood, but the imperative that is the mood of least reality): why do I have to tell my kids to wash their hands after going to the bathroom? Because they don't. It's the law of hand-washing. (For a more humorous take, Gary Larsen forever immortalized the idea with the alarm + light over the men's room.)
COVID's hand-washing suggestions are the grown-up version. And the way my kids resent it when I tell them to go back and wash their hands is not much different than the way some of my otherwise reasonable co-workers reacted. Of course not everyone reacted this way, but if the messaging were somewhat different I wouldn't be surprised to have found compliance higher.
Law is always paired with a consequence. For my kids, it's a short trip back to the washroom and possibly a haranguing depending on whether I'm extra irritable. For our society, it's sometimes death and/or being subjected to schadenfreude (haha, stupid rednecks took ivermectin and not only poisoned themselves but also died of COVID).
YMMV, but I have found this basic principle explains a lot: the law always accuses, and it always provokes its opposite. Moreover, people are really good at hearing law even if that's not the intent of the speaker. Communicating is hard.
A friend was a climbing instructor for awhile, and she related that when teaching people who were scared of heights to climb that the phrase "don't look down" (the law of "don't look down") was verboten. Instead, the command was "keep looking up." The difference between the two phrases was illuminating.
When the law says, 'separate your plastics and glass for recycling', not many people intentionally start mixing them. When it tells businesses to pay minimum wage, they don't cut wages further below the new minimum. Most people think of most laws as reasonable.
Yes, it needs to be communicated effectively. If you attack people, they feel unsafe and get defensive. Most law is very dry reading, not accusatory or emotional. And very few people read the actual laws.