I think it's advisable to make decisions with reflection on actuarial tables and expected utility. Basically any activity whose likelihood of death or injury i

I think it's advisable to make decisions with reflection on actuarial tables and expected utility. Basically any activity whose likelihood of death or injury is below the base rate of same for the population in question is "safe" compared to more risky activities. For the risky activities mitigations can be taken (safer vehicles, bicycle helmets, vaccines, masks, education, supervision, etc.) to make the risk more acceptable. Not all mitigations are worth taking, and some extra mitigations are worthwhile; safety does not equal happiness, and everyone has their own risk profile and risk tolerance. I think what happens when people pretend that 'normal' activities have zero risk is that they become both fearful and complacent from cognitive dissonance, e.g. refusing to wear masks but too afraid to get a vaccine. This is the degenerate situation that results from people not being comfortable with reasoning about probability and expected outcomes in everyday decisions, in large part from lack of practice.