In viral disease, risk compensation was one (if not the main) reason why NHS England previously refused to fund PrEP, a prevention medication for HIV high risk groups, effectively gay and bisexual men. Put aside the moral argument that cannot and possibly should not be in epidemiology discussion, the reason NHS England then was that people will behave recklessly if they get PrEP.
Then, NHS lost the case in the High Court, and people can access PrEP now.
As we know by early 2020, HIV infection in London hugely dropped. At the same time, other STIs such as syphilis and gonorrhoea reached record high. It clearly shows that PrEP works for stopping HIV transmission. Note that we don't know yet if PrEP promoted other STIs by the so-called risk compensation mentality, or syphilis and gonorrhoea case number will be this high anyway. A way to see it is to compare the other STIs rate between PrEP and non-PrEP groups, but people might have chose to take PrEP because 1. they are more likely to have more sexual partners, or 2. they are more worried to get HIV so might be more careful? Another way is to check behavioral change, if those people abandon condoms now? There seems to be this trend, whilst how this translates to other STIs increase is hard to measure.
Anyway, it is a no brainer now that PrEP should be given to high risk group, judging by the massive impact on HIV infection and the fact that HIV is way more serious and harder to treat. I didn't and still couldn't understand what NHS England was thinking when they refused to fund it back in 2014.
Risk compensation might be very true, but don't let it stop what should be done.