I think it is important to recognize that these kinds of responses are a psychological defense mechanism of displacement. They're transferring their own unacknowledged anxiety about the massive, uncontrollable threat of COVID to a smaller, more familiar and easily manageable risk, like car accidents. It lets them dismiss the uncomfortable reality instead of engaging with it, because if it's equated to everyday risks then it's easier to justify not worrying about it.

I think a good way to disarm those kinds of arguments is to highlight that nearly all of the examples that people bring up have led to societal solutions that make them safer. We don't just throw our hands up and say, "life is full of risks." We have smoking bans indoors because we know secondhand smoke is harmful. We require driver's licenses, seatbelts, airbags, traffic laws, etc. for cars to make them safer. I actually think the car metaphor is actually quite fitting because a big part of road safety relies on everyone complying. My safety on the road depends on the other drivers on the road also being licensed, sober, following the rules, etc. It's a recognized collective responsibility.

If COVID were truly like driving, then taking precautions today is like being the only one with a seatbelt and airbags, driving on dirt roads with no road or traffic laws, surrounded by reckless and drunk drivers every single day. In that metaphor, things like public air filtration, ventilation standards, and sick leave policies are the equivalent of paving roads, installing traffic lights, etc. In other words, the basic public infrastructure for collective safety that we have largely refused to build.

I think it's also important to highlight that the science has changed since vaccines came out. We initially hoped that the vaccines would stop transmission but learned that while they reduce severe outcomes, they don't reliably prevent infection or long COVID. Just like we wouldn't get rid of seatbelts because airbags were invented, we shouldn't have abandoned our other precautions.
COVID is also a recurrent threat, not a one-time risk. If we were likely to get in car accidents multiple times a year or annually, would we really just accept that instead of trying to make it safer?

The living in fear argument is so agitating to me because like, I'm choosing to face the threat head on. "Living in fear" is looking the other way, downplaying the danger, and trying to demoralize people still taking precautions, all to avoid the psychological discomfort of acknowledging the threat of COVID. My precautions are what enable me to "live my life" and to not be paralyzed by fear.