In decades of experiencing various computing environments, the amount of time wasted to fix applications broken by updates to dynamically-linked libraries has dwarfed by a few orders of magnitude the amount of time saved by not recompiling statically-linked applications because of a new library version that fixes security problems.
What scares me about the need to recompile statically linked binaries is that the problem is invisible until a bug hits. You don't know the statically linked library is vulnerable unless you keep track of all versions that went into that binary and almost no organization does that.
DLL problems are very easy to see and very obvious when they happen. But it's been a long while since I last saw one.
If some people like dynamically-linked applications, let them have such applications.
What annoys me greatly is the existence of unavoidable libraries that have been designed intentionally to not work when linked statically, which make the life difficult for those who prefer to use only statically-linked applications. The main offending library is glibc, but there are too many other such cases.
