The British government's view is that cyber insurance that pays ransoms to criminals is, as the National Cyber Security Centre put it last year, a matter for individual board members. Although The Register asked whether it would condemn the use of cyber insurance to pay ransoms, the GCHQ offshoot wouldn't be drawn.
Oh, and a matter for individual board members, is that so? Is it any great wonder the GCHQ offshoot remained and remains schtum.
The wage slaves views are that crippling taxation and constantly rising inflation pays a ransom to criminals adding zero value to their lives. Failure to pay such a ransom though is always going to be problematical for criminals, individuals and board members.
Do you see the parallel/singularity in the two cases? And thus the likely enough reason for any number of intelligent unresolved silences which attend and surround such matters.