So if you safety processes made 99% of situations 1,000,000 times safer, but 1% of situations remain high risk you may as well throw out all your processes and

So if you safety processes made 99% of situations 1,000,000 times safer, but 1% of situations remain high risk you may as well throw out all your processes and incur 1,000,000 times more risk 100% of the time? That is positively absurd. It might make sense to reevaluate what is the most efficient allocation of resources which would result in the greatest holistic safety increase per resource spent, but throwing everything out to reach the lowest common denominator is just straight up nonsense. The only way that makes sense is if you assume a completely uniform risk tolerance, completely uniform mitigation ROI, and you assume the highest risk activity is the true underlying uniform risk tolerance with the other 99% of low risk activities being the outliers. Literally every one of those assumptions is ludicrous.