One could say that in relation to a domestic property. However, I think there are some who would like to be able to say vthe same in relation to "a property in the high risk category", since they are far convinced that there is a justification for the downsides and cost even in such an environment.
As I've implied, I do think that 'we' approach these issues back-to-front. I would say that we should identify significant problems and then attempt to invent 'solutions' to those problems whose benefits outweigh any downsides. Instead,we seem to have an approach led by what 'solutions' are 'technologically possible' and 'commercially profitable' which do not necessarily address a significant real-world 'problem' that needs a solution.
This will probably become an increasing issue as technology inevitably advances, since there is almost '#no end' to what may come to eventually be 'technologically possible'. A few years back I was involved on the periphery of attempts (then unsuccessful) to develop devices which could detect human contact with life electrical conductors (by detecting tiny 'ECG' signals in amongst everything else) - the idea being that, unlike RCDs, such a device would give some protection to people against simultaneous contact with L and N conductors.
It's far from impossible that the time will come when we could get such an idea to work. However, even at the time, I expressed serious doubts as to whether the number of incidents of 'L-N shocks' would ever be enough to sensibly justify widespread deployment of what would quite probably be pretty expensive devices.
There will always be some who present the "one death is one death too many" argument. That's all very well, but a totally impractical approach in the real world, in which so little comes without any 'risk' at all.
