The bigger picture is controlling behaviour longer term under the guise of climate emergencies which will mean enforcing changes to consumer actions e.g. today on the radio Sainsburys pay someone who sounds very much like globalist hypocrite Stephen Fry to advertise how we need to replace some of the lamb in our shepherd's pie with lentils. On the TV, Wagamama extols the virtues of moving to a plant based menu.
Previously, I have seen WEF/UN slides showing how land use change will be forced through to repurpose agricultural land for "green", excuse the pun, crops. This will entail eventually no cropping for alcohol production or vines for winemaking. The latter will be ripped up, production restricted, prices will go up, pubs and social drinking will be killed off. Hence the last 18 months of blame being laid at hospitality's feet for the spread of "coronaviruses". No evidence, but it sowed the seed that going out is dangerous and that the venues and businesses serving alcohol are shameful.
That will initially be prodded via a credit scoring system so whilst individuals will be able to purchase booze or go to the pub, they will suffer demerit points if they do. As such it will result in a necessary "voluntary" change of behaviour to avoid the privations too many demerit points will cause, just as voluntarily submitting to being jabbed has been achieved through shame and coercion to avoid "losing freedoms".
For years, children in state education have been subject to merit/demerit points to prepare them for this sort of scheme being introduced so it will seem normal.
I don't believe that there was a masterplan as such. Just a coming together of interests. Who benefits? Online retailers - increased sales and the swifter death of smaller competitors, Pharma (pre Covid having a nightmare with the opioid crisis, antibiotic resistance, intractable illnesses etc), Tech - previously data thieving bastards now fact checkers for govt. Chinese manufacturing and the plastics industry (which had also been getting a hard time), car and road industey (public transport full of disease vectors), energy sector (more expensive to run individual homes than large offices). Who supported it all because they thought they would benefit? NHS /teachers/public sector workers. Who felt some short term benefits and therefore felt supportive? The furloughed. Who loved it and generally lapped it up? Those whose lives felt a bit worthless and who were gifted their very own drama. That accounts perhaps for the first few months. As the narrative wore on, it gained a life of its own. Govts had malleable populations, the rich were getting ever richer and with a forever gravy train. It's hard to say no to I imagine! Things have been going wrong for some time as people live for longer in poorer health, democracy and welfare states are expensive, the money is running out, resources are running out. now we have the perfect excuse.. Everything is 'cos covid' so Govts aren't at fault. And so here we are, the rich get richer and the people roll up their sleeves while shouting at others about masks and passports. Now Govts and corporations can basically say anything and do anything and are believed by the majority. Why wouldn't they want that. Money and power.
@occamsrazor look at the commercial partners to the WEF.
Then as you say, large non-highstreet sellers.
Unions who can hide behind "health" as reasons to control the public.
Govts who know without this their failures and complicity in the 2018 financial crash would be exposed.
Dogmatic world communists (e.g. the EU) who want to see the final permanent end to nation states.
China and its sell out accolytes around the world (Daniel Andrews, NZ, Italy, Ferguson).
Failed public health officials who have spent 40 years creaming off money from everywhere to "cure" us of HIV. This is their chance to cement their reputations.
Big pharma and their biggest customers e.g the NHS.
