The number of people reliant on this pipeline is several orders of magnitude greater than would be impacted by taking a single hospital offline. You’d need to have many hospitals impacted to create a similar level of risk. The only big difference is that taking out hospital infrastructure can kill people immediately whereas the impact of a pipeline failure won’t generally be felt for days or weeks.
Edit: Based on your other response it sounds like we are on the same page.
But if you instead compare 40% of the hospitals going offline VS 40% loosing access to gas, with similar conditions, I think the mortality will be higher by attacking hospitals. I think the government could probably somehow logistically ration oil if shit really hits the pan too, so essentials can keep running. Probably worse situation with hospitals, even though the military could probably help out there a bit.
That's why it's weird to not react when people are attacking hospitals, vs oil pipelines. But as said before in my other comment, maybe not too weird.
The average person fills their gas tank once a month, so they are much more likely to notice personally.
Hospital affects workers who work there and people using that hospital VS Pipeline affects workers who work there and people currently refilling their cars with gas from there
Or
Hospital affects workers who work there and everyone within a radius who could need it at any moment VS Pipeline affects works who work there and people who generally rely on that gas to drive
Suddenly the groups seems much similarly sized, while one being important for staying alive VS the other being a nice-to-have, if we consider it being offline for a week or two only.
I know which one I would consider being worse if I was a country. But then we're also talking about a country who's fascination for oil is like no other, so this is hardly surprising.