Edit: spelling
Edit: spelling
For example what if I was to claim there are really two distinct groups of 'unvaccinated' Covid people. Group A and Group B unvaccinated. Group A only contains 1 person and very clearly is not clogging up the hospitals. Someone claims to be 'Group A' unvaccinated and asserts their actions are not a problem because they are not clogging up the system.
A more realistic example is there are 20 smaller groups of people that in total are the same size as the Covid unvaccinated group but these groups have twice the risk as the unvaccinated group. If we make decisions based on group_size * risk then these groups are fine but we see that combined they have a much worse effect on capacity than the unvaccinated group. If we make decisions based solely on risk and not risk * group_size then the 'triage' protocol is going to make more sense.
Practically, you might have to treat groups differently because it's impossible to make efficient rules for a lot of small groups but ignoring the practical costs of rule making it is risk that is important not the size of the groups.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/04/us/chicago-mount-sinai-hospit...
There is one group who are consuming medical resources in such a way that it is limiting access for others. And the reason for this consumption is largely a personal decision to not take precautions that would prevent such consumption.
If 'gang banging' or any other elective activity (or lack thereof) were resulting in a similar situation, I think it would be right to explore the idea of limiting access for those making such decisions to ensure access for others.