If your threat model includes nation state attacks you're gonna have problems no matter what. Change your personal behavior accordingly. Don't tell everyone else they need to wear bullet proof vests around the house and hire corporate security goons. They don't and doing so is burdensome.
So, in a way, it's probably just a matter of time that the kind of silent hack depicted in the Amnesty article is used for attacks targeted towards more general victims. I don't look forward to the day that just by reading an unprotected HTTP site is enough to get my phone compromised as part of a widespread scamming effort from someone trying to get credit card details or banking stuff... but it will propbably end up coming if we don't move all together for a more secure WWW.
They aren't problems with security in HTTP versus HTTPS for a personal or small business static website.
Attacks on HTTP sites are known threats that we have evidence for, they aren't ridiculous or unheard of. The defense is not "everyone where a bulletproof vest", it's get a certificate and set up HTTPS - a one time cost that will protect thousands of people.
You're making the choice for your users, who may not be as informed as you are, to not protect them. That's very different from asking them to wear a bulletproof vest.
"Unharmful" HTTP sites are used to silently hack people's computers and keep them under observation for months. Every unsecured site contributes their small piece to keep the web unsafe for people who needs it to be safe.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/research/2020/06/moroccan-...