In my opinion, yes. Echoing the sibling comment, having a large amount of distributed skin lesions, or any joint pain at all makes one reconsider their options. Surface-level treatments might be very uncomfortable to apply and wear and provide only temporary and unstable relief, as well as UV sessions. Unless you live by the seaside or would like to go there several times a year to keep the skin clean, it's infeasible as a long-term solution. On the other hand, the quality of life improves immensely with injections - the symptoms _just_ disappear, which no diet, or lifestyle change, or application, or alternative medicine, or other supportive care can achieve in the majority of patients.
It goes without saying that your situation may be different, but most people I know opt for them meds, choosing Bimzelx, or a similar treatment (Taltz (ixekizumab) or Skyrizi (risankizumab)). The only downside is the cost, but it may be very well possible to wring it out of your insurance, especially in Europe.
I guess that is what makes things somewhat difficult for me. If I could not see my condition, then I wouldn't even know I had it. I have no symptoms that prevent me from doing anything I need to do in life (knock on wood). I am actually more on the mild side of the spectrum of disease severity.
So, that is why I find it unusual that doctors have offered biologics in the past. I do remember one doctor made a comment to me. She said it was unusual that I do not want biologics because most, if not all, of her patients beg for them regardless of the disease severity. Maybe she is getting kickbacks or something? I have no idea.
Basically, that is the root of my question. Are the risks worth it for someone that has maybe 1-2% coverage of lesions across their entire body? Sure, it'd be nice to go from 1-2% to 0%, I guess, but I cannot get a good understanding on the risks.