If a receptor is used as an entry point by a common virus and disabling it prevents infection but evolution has kept it around (cells spend energy actively expressing it, not having it encoded in the genome) then you can assume that there is a function provided by the receptor.

Turns out, CD163 already has a known function.

A spandrel not only has to have obvious function but removing it has to not be detrimental. I'm questioning the bar that is being used to say that it's not detrimental.

Unless humanity was on the brink of starvation and this was the only known way to increase food production then no it's not dangerous to be cautious.

On the other hand, I think it's dangerous to assume that a protein only has one function

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_moonlighting