I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that things like mite resistance and longevity of the queen stock are more important factors to consider, than whether or not to treat. Even the strongest, healthiest, best bees can get sick, just like Olympic athletes are not immune to the flu.
That said, however, I don't subscribe to the cook-book method of prophylactically treating bees. My thoughts are, do the absolute minimum, keep a close eye
on the hives and mite counts, and when you see a problem looming, THEN treat it aggressively.
Personally, I don't treat for anything. There are 2 reasons for this. One is we have very little varroa/SHB/AFB/EFB in this region. The other is because I want to get a sense for the conditions my bees exist under. I want to see for myself what is going on- in other words, if I treat, I wont be able to tell whether it's the treatment that keeps the hives alive, or if they would have been fine without it. I'm a little leery of beekeepers who say things like "If you dont treat, you wont have any hive comes spring". I'm willing to lose my hives to put that claim to the test, and also to see just how quickly they succumb to pests/pathogens, what the symptoms are, how well they react, etc. To me, thats what being a beginning beekeeper is all about- the learning process. When a local beekeeper sold me a couple of what he called "rough around the edges" feral nucs that ended up being queenless, I was thrilled. I got to learn to requeen, do newspaper combines, deal with a laying worker, and still managed to get one hive through the winter. I learned a ton from those "rough" bees, and wouldn't have traded them for anything.
So, my thought is don't treat. Sit back and see what happens. Then treat any problems that crop up, and see how well it works. Expect a loss rate in your hives, but chalk it up to a learning experience.