I think when people come to these conclusions it's largely due to a misunderstanding of what exactly the point of most programming language safety measures are and why they make sense.
Something that people often ponder is why you can't just solve the null safety problem by forcing every pointer dereference to be checked, with no other changes. Well of course, you can do that. But actually, simply checking to make sure the pointer is non-null at the point of dereference gets you surprisingly little. When you do this, what you're (ostencibly) trying to do is reduce the number of null pointer dereferences, but in practice what happens now is that you just have to explicitly handle them. But, in a lot of cases, there's really nothing particularly sensible to do: the pointer not being null is an invariant that was supposed to be upheld and it wasn't, and now at the point of dereference, at runtime, there's nothing to do except crash. Which is what would've happened anyways, so what's the point? What you really want to do isn't actually prevent null pointer dereferences, it's to uphold the invariants that the pointer is non-null in the first place, ideally before you leave compile time.
Disallowing "unsafe" operations without marking them explicitly unsafe doesn't give you a whole lot, but what you can do is expand the number of explicitly safe operations to cover more of what you want to do. How Rust, and many other programming languages, have been accomplishing this is by expanding the type system, and combining this with control flow analysis. Lifetimes in Rust are a prime example, but there are many more such examples. Nullability, for example, in languages like TypeScript. When you do it this way, the safety of such "safe" operations can be guaranteed, and while these guarantees do have some caveats, they are very strong to a lot of different situations that human code reviews are not, such as an unsafe combination of two otherwise-safe changesets.
It's actually totally fine that some code will probably remain unable to be easily statically verified, the point is that we want to reduce the amount of code that can't be easily statically verified to be as small as possible. In the future we can use much less easy approaches to statically verify unsafe blocks, such as using theorem provers to try to prove the correctness of "unsafe" code. But even just reducing the amount of not-necessarily-memory-safe code is an enormous win, for obvious reasons: it dramatically reduces the surface area for vulnerabilities. Moreover, time and time again, it is validated that most new vulnerabilities come from relatively recent changes in code, which is another huge win: a lot of the unsafe foundations actually don't need to be changed very often.
There is absolutely nothing special about code written in Rust, it's doing the same shit that C code has been doing for decades (well, on the abstract anyway; I'm not trying to downplay how much more expressive it is by any means). What Rust mainly offers is a significantly more advanced type system that allows validating many more invariants at compile-time. God knows C developers on large projects like the Linux kernel care about validating invariants: large amounts of effort have been poured into static checking tools for C that do exactly this. Rust is a step further though, as the safe subset of Rust provides guarantees that you basically can't just tack onto C with only more static checking tools.