It's the same argument, and shifting the objective to "healthcare resources" doesn't make it any more responsive than before.
I (like many people) am at ~zero risk of serious disease, so we're back to the same transitive logic: apparently my catching a virus is morally equivalent to overloading the healthcare system, because I might give it to someone who is at risk. Well, likewise: you risk putting someone else in the hospital by catching the flu. Has it stopped you from living before?
And of course, there is a matter of degree: getting a seasonal shot is one thing; demanding that people avoid seeing their families is entirely another.
Finally, consider that every young, healthy person who gets this virus is afterward immune, and contributes to overall population immunity. Therefore, getting the virus and recovering from it is a positive outcome for society. This is offset by some small risk of transmission, of course, but that's a manageable risk. After all, masks and social distancing work, right?
Of course it's allowed. But you should come armed with epidemiological data that contradicts the evidence and studies already out there. That's the language that epidemiologists speak. And extraordinary claims that contradict both the data and common sense require extraordinary evidence.
Merely questioning it without a plausible explanation that is consistent with the existing data is a distraction. Why should anyone listen to you if that's all you've got?
"Of course it's allowed. But you should come armed with epidemiological data that contradicts the evidence and studies already out there. That's the language that epidemiologists speak."
Interesting that you should say that. The Danish RCT for masks as PPE was just published this week, and showed no statistical effect of masks on protection against SARS-CoV2:
Despite this study being high quality, the only randomized controlled trial of masks and SARS-CoV2, and of pressing public interest, it was rejected by no fewer than three major scientific journals before publication. That's...unusual, to say the least:
As a scientist, it has been dismaying to me how willing the scientific community has been to engage in censorship of unpopular opinions in 2020. Even the highest quality evidence is being actively suppressed, if it doesn't fit the "consensus viewpoint".
"And extraordinary claims that contradict both the data and common sense require extraordinary evidence."
In the case of medical interventions, the historical convention is that you do nothing if you cannot prove effectiveness. Said differently: claiming that an intervention works is an extraordinary claim. Assuming that it does not work is, quite literally, the null hypothesis.
I (like many people) am at ~zero risk of serious disease, so we're back to the same transitive logic: apparently my catching a virus is morally equivalent to overloading the healthcare system, because I might give it to someone who is at risk. Well, likewise: you risk putting someone else in the hospital by catching the flu. Has it stopped you from living before?
And of course, there is a matter of degree: getting a seasonal shot is one thing; demanding that people avoid seeing their families is entirely another.
Finally, consider that every young, healthy person who gets this virus is afterward immune, and contributes to overall population immunity. Therefore, getting the virus and recovering from it is a positive outcome for society. This is offset by some small risk of transmission, of course, but that's a manageable risk. After all, masks and social distancing work, right?