Coverage is necessary but not sufficient, your tests also need to be good and test the right things. What's your proposed alternative - that we don't even try because our tests aren't guaranteed to be perfect?
For even a fairly trivial piece of code, the search space for bugs can be vast or even infinite. Writing unit tests to find bugs within that space is like throwing darts at an infinitely large wall and trying to hit an unknown number of invisible targets. You can only write tests for the potential bugs you anticipate - if you could anticipate a bug, you wouldn't write it, right? You end up with dozens or hundreds of tests that probably never failed, except when you have to change something. Such was my experience when I tried to maintain high code coverage. When I switched to writing assertions and acceptance tests, my rate of bug reports did not change, and I was more agile.