Let's say you have one respirator left and two people who need it. One is 35, but the other 70.
How do you decide who gets it? Do you flip a coin? Or can you say, "well, the 35 year old has a 3x better chance of survival if he gets a respirator than the 70-year-old, who has a 75% chance of dying even if he gets one?"
To go with the 35-year-old in this case is not really direct euthanasia ... it's more like a form of triage. Now, to say that IN PRINCIPLE no one over 60 should get a respirator, that's certainly wrong.
Let's say you're a medic on a battlefield, and there are two wounded soldiers. You can only get to one of them at a time. Who do you get to first? Could you decide based on the consideration, "this guy over here has a 90% chance of dying even if I help, but this other guy would likely survive if I help him." Is that an immoral decision? I don't think so. That is not euthanasia at all.
You still take every measure you possibly can to save that aforementioned hypothetical 70-year-old, but the decision of who gets the respirator can be made on chances of survival. If I gave the respirator to the 70-year-old and withhold it from the 35-year-old, there's a high probability that BOTH would die, the 35-year-old because he didn't get it and the 70-year-old despite of having it.