Does anyone actually still buy into the "overwhelm the health system" narrative? I mean, that was the original reasoning for initiating lockdowns (two weeks to stop the spread, flatten the curve) and it's repeatedly been threatened but never actually come to fruition. Indeed, healthcare workers are busy, dedicated and hard-working, and I'm sure they would like Covid to end, but the idea that scores of people are dying untreated because hospitals are overwhelmed with Covid cases seems not to have ever materialized. (Except maybe NY under Cuomo's watch)
Anecdote and all, but... Look, my family members work in healthcare all over the country. There is no "overwhelm the the healthcare system" crap. There is, however, locked down departments, shut down services, and reduced amount of surgeries. Those are due to policies, and have nothing to do with COVID-19.
The problem is that sentence is still too vague. If you make a more quantitative statement it would be easier to engage with.
Requiring hospitalization but 10X higher probability compared to delta for surviving hospitalization can be described as "to have better health outcomes than Delta". But if transmissibility is higher it can still overwhelm the hospital infrastructure and cause more deaths by making beds a scarce commodity not only for those affected by covid but also others who need a hospitalization bed.
Note that a multiplicative factor reduction in the probability of surviving, becomes just a time shift during exponential growth phase of the spread. With a doubling rate of 2 days, a 1/16 factor is a delay of 8 days. It shifts the curve, does not flatten it, at least not at the off-peak regime.