I struggle to think of a robust theological defence of this principle.
Forgive me if I step through my understanding from a more basic level than you require - I don't think one can presume on knowing the full sequence outside of church goers.
There is a transcendent (above, beyond, other) God, who created the universe. He chose to reveal himself, through creation, through words and, ultimately, through becoming human (Jesus), living and dying around 2,000 years ago. We know this because he ordained that his self-revelation be committed to writing - the Bible.
As God's self-revelation, the Bible is viewed as having all that is required for "faith and practice", a Reformation phrase, but one recognisable both beyond and well before that. [1]
On this basis, the church would seek to model herself on that of the first century church, following an example deemed to be binding to all cultures until Jesus returns.
So, what did the early church look like? Individual believers bound themselves together in local groups - whilst faith was individual, that faith expressed itself corporately, in a way that perhaps isn't entirely understandable to our individualistic culture. The church is described as a family, a household, even a single body.
The individuals welcomed each other into their homes, ate together, and were physically affectionate - all of which were commanded, and all of which caused Roman onlookers to think this new cult held incestuous, cannibalistic orgies.
Whilst technology (writing) was used to communicate, this was described as a poor second to face-to-face communication. The primary rituals (communion and baptism) were physical. An early heresy was to spiritulise belief and downplay or denigrate the physical nature of people and faith.
Worship consisted of believers gathering together, to share communion, pray and be taught. Corporate singing was integral and believers were warned not to give up meeting together.
Every activity in a pandemic carries risk, the questions are "what is essential?" and "what is worth the risk?" Clearly society has agreed that healthcare, economic activity and education (all to some extent or other) are worth the risk.
If one believes that God exists, has revealed himself and decreed appropriate worship, then one may consider following that decree is essential and worth the risk, even where society or government dictates otherwise (see martyrs through the ages, many of whom were killed for continuing to worship in the face of opposition).
There are nuances to the above, for example, how this might be expressed whilst still respecting legal (God-ordained) authorities and demonstrating love within society.
I'm sure this brief(!) summary will raise more questions and objections than it provides insights, which I'm happy to discuss offline - I suspect a theological discussion would end up being as unwelcome as our political discussions on a cycling forum...
Robert
[1] For a detailed, technical expression of this - https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/the-chicago-statement-on-biblical-inerrancy/