No, you're proposing that if things are statistically demonstrably better and also low probability events, then we can look elsewhere for problems and de-emphasize resources to fight these things not warranting attention.

There are lots of things that were statistically demonstrably worse in the past and also statistically miniscule in occurrence, but I think you would get righteously clobbered if you proposed defending their current rate of occurrence as acceptable. Lots of things.

I agree with your first paragraph unironically. If we don't measure it as an important problem, it probably does not deserve disproportionate resources.

There are outliers to that. I think medical research for something like a rare disease is a good one. High cost, and by some metrics, low payout, but worthy. I don't think this recent right wing paranoia about crime is a good example. Especially since the "tough on crime" policies that people want to enact in reaction to it do not work and have a tendency to incarcerate innocent and undeserving people as collateral damage.

It's not paranoia in SF. It's gotten worse. It's affected poor and middle class working people's quality of life. It's not a clinical, detached exercise. It affects people's ability to pay their bills afford rent, mental health, etc. There is a Reason more a moderate like J Engardio won this time round. People are getting fed up.

I've spent the last 11 years in SF. It's largely paranoia. It is a funny sight, I do see people who got here more recently than I have are describing things as new, but they are old problems, I've heard the same complaints the whole time.

One small anecdote, the first year or two I got here, I felt I was being sized up for muggings a couple times. Has not happened in a long time.