There's an increasing concern for disabled people; it's clear that they don't get any additional support despite the pandemic and it's worrying that "you should die for the economy" rhetoric is solidly mainstream. It's not very far between that and "we'll kill you for the economy", especially since that's what various governments' COVID policy amounts to in functional terms, just a little more random.
This tends to focus on "a drain on society" and the (entirely obvious from a disabled perspective) "I'd contribute more if you'd spend more", either on making economic contribution possible (e.g., the refusal to allow work from home prior to the pandemic; lots of folks could have a job if they can work from home, and not if they have to commute) or on providing basic support (e.g., public provision of mobility devices).
There's a couple-six tactical mistakes in all this.
Firstly, "drain on the economy" in "you cost more than you pay in taxes" terms isn't answerable; that's why the frame is used. (Generally by people who seek to lower their own taxes to zero; presenting in complete seriousness a plan to cull oligarchs as unproductive might be a useful rhetorical response.)
Secondly, mammonism tries hard to present itself as factual, but isn't in any way; it doesn't accept falsifiability of anything, never mind its axioms. No amount of pointing out material error will do anything because no mammonite is the least bit interested in being correct. It's a sort of distributed mystery cult.
Thirdly, most people sincerely believe that it's OK to kill you for not being normal. Their entire childhood was structured around social norms where you hurt people until they acted normal, they were themselves certainly hurt for not acting normal, and their conviction that you must be normal is axiomatic, irrational, and close to absolute. (And immutable; success with gay acceptance, such as their was and what there was of it, rested on "I don't want to kill someone I know fairly well" squeems. There was no general expansion of normal and there was no refutation of "OK to kill you for not being normal". There were a bunch of personal exceptions and an agreement that you should be allowed your personal exceptions if you were normal, since, well, yeah, having to beat someone to death when you kinda liked them would be icky.)
Fourth, no one (aside from a few marginalised economics hobbyists) wants to optimise productivity, economic participation, or any general measure of contribution; they want to optimise how much money they have. Even when people aren't outright mammonites; what you hear repeated becomes true, and the degree of repetition of mammonite axioms is well past saturation. Security arises from wealth, you must obey greater wealth, and there are no permissible collective forms of organisation save those which reinforce the gradient of wealth. (why, yes, that does describe a slave society,and yes, they do mean that as a constraint on laws.)
So what do they want?
They really do want to kill you for not being normal. It's a construction of virtue, in part because the people doing the construction derive their social power and standing from participating in the definition of normal. (Every time you see complaints about "kids these days" and novel communications platforms? The base complaint is "they're getting their construction of normal from a source that isn't me". It's a real threat to the existing general social construction of power if the source of the definition of normal shifts.)
Everything else is a rationalisation for how they can want that and be a good person. None of it is any more falsifiable than any other faith statement or any other rationalisation; no amount of pointing out that money is an entirely profane collective rationing system for agency that doesn't function without a state guarantor makes a dent on mammonites, because they know that money is the materialisation of the love of God and you can't have it, and you certainly can't have any of theirs. (When it's not and can't be your money; money is inherently and inescapably socialist. Agency isn't; agency is inescapably and particularly your agency. That difference in scope is where much of the problem comes from once, structurally and socially, money and agency are equated.)
Is there a more helpful frame?
I think so; removing friction. All this implicit difficulty in stairs and curbs and narrow stairwells and so on is a cost, and just like the deaths that lead to carbon monoxide detectors being required, it's a cost there's a general social motivation to reduce.
Places where ramps come in, splitting stairwells, the ramp gets a lot of use by people with roller luggage, garment racks, and so on; it perfectly straightforward to point that out as general utility. Perfectly straightforward to point out that current escalator design optimizes the wrong thing. It's not normal to want to make regular daily life more difficult, is it?
(Well, yes it is; it provides display opportunities, and thus status. Trick is to move the basis of status.)
The city engineer should be seen about towing a little instrumented cart, and public roads rated by where the greatest force is required; places of business should be rated by the ability to move a volume frame around in them. You get the fire marshal and emergency services to do that one; can we get the stretcher to you? stuff. Only you make sure it's one of those scissor-lift gurney things in current use, not an old-school pole stretcher. If this coincidentally improves mobility devices, and if there are much less-publicised mobility device requirements, well, the point is to make the regulation harder to argue with. It's normal to want them to be able to get the stretcher to you.
(This general idea of not making things difficult can and should be extended all over the place.)
From there, there's the idea that there's a general public responsibility to expand possibility. Not for the worthy; not for immediate, direct, economic reasons, but because that's what it is normal for a society to do. A society which pretends to prosperity by denying opportunity is both weak and a lie. 
(One could, in past times when some people believed in being judged after death, sometimes get somewhere with notions of duty and obligation; pretty much everybody getting hurt by COVID in the Anglosphere is that way because of government failure, and the successor government acquire an obligation thereby. Nobody actually believes this today.)
So, yes, there's an immediate need to worry about all this and to care for the stricken in the specific and in general; insisting that it's wrong to measure people's worth with money won't work, because to a first approximation no one here in late capitalism believes that. Pick a value of normal people want and advance that. It might work. "This is cruel" won't work; it never worked when they were kids, after all, and now they know what virtue is.
 it is OK for drivers to kill people if the people aren't in cars because driving is normal; walking and riding a bicycle aren't. It is entirely that simple, which is also why it's so wretchedly intractable.
 "medical technology unable to free you from specific constraint is insufficient, and should be improved with the goal of attaining sufficient capability to free you from your specific constraints for all the values of you in society" would be a controversial statement. (in large part because people correctly suppose that corporates would get the tech first, and make being able to edit you a condition of employment.) It's still the appropriate social goal, and one where part of the goal has to be a social and systemic context where it's possible to have the capability as an increase in general possibility; your agency is increased by this, not decreased.