Of course this doesn't necessarily generalise, but there's plenty of older english people with the "I don't want to be a bother" mindset so it might do better than you think.
I am curious if this is true, ie: does medical science hold above as an accepted fact by general consensus?
I ask because my understanding is that the 1918 flu (aka Spanish flu) which was an H1N1 (upper respiratory infection in humans , intestinal tract in birds) predominantly killed young adults, ie: healthy non-immunocompromised people. Here's the wikipedia remark:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1918_flu_pandemic
"the 1918 pandemic predominantly killed previously healthy young adults."
"a rapid progressive respiratory failure and death through a cytokine storm (overreaction of the body's immune system). It was then postulated that the strong immune reactions of young adults ravaged the body, whereas the weaker immune systems of children and middle-aged adults resulted in fewer deaths among those groups"
But there's some conflicting explanations: "special circumstances (malnourishment, overcrowded medical camps and hospitals, poor hygiene) promoted bacterial superinfection that killed most of the victims typically after a somewhat prolonged death bed "
You've got to remember, too, that it wasn't an especially virulent strain of influenza alone that caused the deaths from 1917-1919. It spread quickly among the war-weary, crowded, exposure-riddled young men who lived with chickens and hogs at the battlefronts. It was common practice at the time to logistically set up small-pen animals close to the long, mostly stable fronts as a source of local food rather than shipping in so much preserved food. Those young men then travelled far and wide across the continent and even overseas as their service rotations came and especially when hostilities ceased.
https://virus.stanford.edu/uda/ tells the story about as well and succinctly as any source. http://ww1centenary.oucs.ox.ac.uk/body-and-mind/the-spanish-... and https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2862337/ have lots of information.
As is common, the war's conditions and aftereffects killed far more people than died in combat. It was a nasty flu, but humans helped it out about the best we could.
1/5 chance it's Group A strep and worth throwing abx at. And... then what? We know the stats, we have a non-specific presentation, and the traditional reason to throw abx at this patient is because we want to minimize the chance of a subsequent heart or kidney disease (post-infectious immune hypersensitivity rxn). 4/5 chance they don't need abx; 1/5 chance that they'll benefit, but not a lot. But, hey,... how do you even attach a utility analysis to "and a small reduction in the likelihood of heart and/or kidney damage"? The magnitude of the risk is hard to comprehend, subjectively, in the face of the small reduction in incidence. And you will see those consequences play out; you're going to see so many sore throats that the small odds will manifest.
This isn't one of those, "stupid doctors, they don't know what they're doing!" things. It's something that doesn't readily yield to utility metrics.
...which is a big part of why it used to be common, and isn't now.