I agree with your statement. As for scenario of forcing change, it reminds me of when ETH rollback DAO hack through hard-coded logic. While majority of ETH community support the rollback, i certainly hope the opposite would happen in this scenario.
There is a significant difference. After the DAO hack, a rollback was proposed by those who lost money to it. It was the Ethereum Foundation and people close to the project. They wanted a redo and to go back to a post where they don't lose their money. But no hack or brute force has happened here from quantum computers. There is no fake governance structure attempting to recover what they have lost unless there is a reason to believe that J. Lopp and the other authors of the BIP are in fact satoshi, wanting to regain access to bitcoin whose keys they lost.If the solutions to this problem all remain controversial, and many users do not support them, then what? Try to force the update, which would significantly aggravate the negative impact from this precedent? 
It would be easy if we could reach strong consensus, but this is not going to happen with proposals that involve freezing. How we approach this lack of consensus will have a bigger impact on Bitcoin's future than any amount of "stolen coins" could ever have.
There is a strong chance that even a simple majority consensus will be impossible on this, so the key question will be "What then?". It would be easy if we could reach strong consensus, but this is not going to happen with proposals that involve freezing. How we approach this lack of consensus will have a bigger impact on Bitcoin's future than any amount of "stolen coins" could ever have.