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.
I get your point. But as stated by @Satofan44, it's closest comparison (that i know and remember) regarding forcing change that involve protocol change and relative big amount of coin.
As a compromise I could maybe accept freezing of P2PK addresses as those were a flaw in the original design of the system, but not more than that. Whoever still has such an address is using Bitcoin wrong.
I don't think there are wallet (that receive update until recently) that support generate P2PK address from GUI these days. Besides, people who re-use their address also facing same issue about their public key got exposed.