I personally am skeptical of some of the lines of reasoning that the idea of “risk compensation” leads people to. Like saying masks are bad because it leads people to isolate less, etc. (this was something some authorities were saying early in the pandemic, and it damaged their credibility later on.) Like yes, there is SOME compensation, in other words it allows risk/reward for some activities to rebalance a bit, but to use this as an argument against a pretty straightforward precaution is foolishness.

I’m also super skeptical of studies that aren’t, like, randomized and carefully done. Correlative studies can easily end up with the authors drawing conclusions of causation in the opposite direction of reality.

“Good things are bad because of convoluted logic” is always something I’ll be skeptical of.