If there isn't any "critical infrastructure" which can be damaged nearby the fire, smaller intentional burns can keep fuel accumulation low.
Generally controlled burns are scheduled during wetter seasons for this reason. But the difficulty of getting the general public to understand this and go along with it is probably hard to understate.
With very high fuel loads, the consequences get worse as time progresses, and the odds of it happening get higher - at least without tons of manual shredding and other fuel work first, which is expensive, and what a prescribed fire should alleviate the need for.
In the modern legal/liability environment, it’s tough to do - if you do the inexpensive thing (still expensive) like prescribed fires to reduce the catastrophic risk, you get sued.
If you do the safer option (mastication, lop and scatter, etc) you can only touch tiny areas at a time - and the catastrophic risk rises.
Logging can help, but it also requires management and care to not make the problem worse long term, and in many of these areas it’s a non-starter due to environmentalist pushback. Even if we ignore the cost in money, it delays things for decades sometimes - and by then it’s probably burned down.
One is the fire intensity for people who enjoy the outdoors and using them. High intensity fires destroy the natural resource and some will take a century to grow back. This is especially worry some because we are essentially locked into all of our forests burning down at this point.
Impact on people and homes is an entirely different one that I honestly care less about, because it affects me less.