All very true. However, there is a limit to how far one can (or, I would say, should) go in introducing regulatory requirements to protect fools. Not the least of the reasons is that, as you say, if one makes something 'proof against' currently-known types of fools, a new (and unanticipated) type of fool will simply evolve.Not every one is prudent. When they make something fool proof, they invent a better fool
Now veering totally off-topic ....
Topically, it is a salutatory reminder that this is essentially much the same as with vaccines and virus mutations - if one introduces a vaccine to protect us against currently-known variants of a virus, a new variant of the virus will usually, sooner or later, come along to circumnavigate that protection.
... [rant] ...and, not being able to resist the temptation to voice my concerns about what is seemingly about to happen, if a government adopts a policy of allowing the number of cases of a viral infection to soar into the clouds, 'reassured' by the fact that (thanks to vaccines) that is not likely to result in 'unacceptable' numbers of hospital admissions and deaths, then they will have greatly increased the risk of new variants (possibly 'resistant' to current vaccines) appearing sooner, rather than later [/rant ]
Kind Regards, John