In my opinion, that is not a fair comparison. Wheelchair ramp usage percentage may be small but they are built because of laws and helps people who actually need it. People are not disabled by choice.
Javascript disablers (and I have full sympathy as a dev. myself) are doing it by choice which is totally fine but it is still a choice, not a need.
By what criterion do you define a need? I've suggested some in my post that could easily be deemed a necessary requirement to require JavaScript to be turn off. It depends on one's circumstances.
Don't expect typical web developers to care for 1-2% blind users when they've often ignored browsers with 5% or higher market share... Most don't understand that a one-time effort to get the last few % in revenue is worth it.
Counting people with a broken leg who could use crutches but would be risk of further injuries due to avoidable things like falling over? More than the zero percent of people with javascript disabled who don't need either security or privacy.
There's a difference between a small percentage needing something and a small percentage wanting something, though. If all wheelchair users could turn off their handicap at any time with no consequence, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a wheelchair ramp anywhere.
If all JavaScript blockers users could turn on JavaScript at any time without consequences to their privacy and security, you'd be hard pressed to find JavaScript blockers as well.
If they're really concerned about privacy and security, their machine would be air-gapped and the web wouldn't even be available as an attack vector. What it really is though is a superiority complex fulfilling their need to be "better" then filthy JS developers who don't code in Rust and Scala.
If I have a client requirement that calls for a high degree of accessibility this obviously changes my approach. I'm talking about things I make for myself, or for clients with less stringent requirements. Same argument goes for the IE crowd.
Screenreaders (including free and built in ones) have had JS support for quite a while. Using JS is very far from being the limiting factor for robust accessibility.
I wonder who bothers to test their wonderful experience product on a screenreader. Regardless of this and regardless of the security threat JS execution poses, I find it hard to use the internet with JS disabled.
However, when it comes to SPAs, I find that I like the older version of the website way more and also find it a whole lot more intuitive and usable.
Javascript disablers (and I have full sympathy as a dev. myself) are doing it by choice which is totally fine but it is still a choice, not a need.