Prohibition by stealth.

I'm not sure it's as much a logic issue as a risk management or risk assessment one.  If we consider the issue from the sole perspective of logic, then the suggestion of selective attention makes sense in that the argument would have to address only some aspects of the matter while ignoring others that also have an impact (in this case, on safety).  Another logical fallacy in play might be a false dilemma.  There's an old aviation adage that provides an almost sure-fire way to reduce aircraft accidents to near 0: ground all aircraft!  Logically, it will reduce accidents; however, it sort of misses a pretty fundamental point of aviation.

To apply the original question to a more timely example, we have the current situation of keeping the economy open at the risk of increased death rates vs. keeping people isolated at the risk of causing much of the economy to falter.  I don't see logic telling us which is the better approach; assessing the risks associated with each option can help.

selective attention is the name of the fallacy you are looking for.

You are deliberately drawing attention away from the draw-backs of something, focusing only on the positives.

We are dealing with should , or an opinion. Essentially, the argument is

Doing A will make B safer, therefore we should do A.

What is not mentioned is the problems and risks of doing A. Ultimately, it is an incomplete or a poorly-reasoned argument.

Example:

Wearing 10 condoms at time will make sex safer.

Yeah, but...