"Pretending" there isn't a safety case.
In the 60's and 70's we had more accidents. We also had analogue aircraft with cable runs, AOA indicators and stick feedback crashing. We also had pilots who were human and unfortunately the biggest single cause of accidents.
In the 21st century we have removed the cable runs, removed the feedback (on some a/c), significantly increased automation but we still have pilots and we still have accidents.
Although the accidents have significantly reduced the number one cause is still pilot error yet the safety statistics and results of accident investigation show no significant difference between Boeing philosophy and Airbus philosophy.
Designers will be continuously monitoring operation and performance for improvements including of course accident causes. The aircraft are different, the way flying is conducted today is different yet there really is a valid argument about training and time "hands on". Is it sufficient?
There isn't however, yet at least, a valid argument about the technology. The industry remains driven by cost and safety. Until you can present a case that meets one of those criteria nothing will change.
On that basis it would appear that change isn't coming so industry has accepted that pilot error remains the issue and not technology. That is not meant to be derogatory just a statement of how it is today for those outside your bubble.