As HTML 5 is a "superset" of HTML 4 Strict (somewhat) there is nothing wrong with "writing for 4 strict, deploying for 5" avoiding those tags altogether. In fact many developers -- myself included -- will tell you to skip using ARTICLE, ASIDE, HEADER, FOOTER, MAIN, NAV, and SECTION as they are mostly redundant to H1..H6 and HR, adding nothing of value to your pages.
Though NAV is starting to get an actual purpose for marking groups of links to show via alternative means, not one legitimate user-agent has done this in a useful manner, and given the history of such "accessibility" additions to HTML -- such as accesskey menus, header navigation as menus headings for grouping links, etc, etc -- I wouldn't hold my breath on seeing that actually do anything.
Same goes for the Aria role nonsense and stuff like "Schema". Bloated nonsense that exists for no other reason than to make data scrapers lives easier... or perhaps I should call them by their real name, data thieves. It's the same garbage as that microformats idiocy from a decade or so ago, and realistically if you have content of value marked up semantically properly using all the tags for what they are for, with well formed and structured headings, forms, lists, and tables, they do nothing but result in trying to pointlessly micromanage the content for... well there's... uhm... ok, why do people do this again?
So yeah, skip those tags, put the 5 doctype on it, use the actual improvements over HTML 4 such as the cleaner encoding meta, simplified header structure, removal of pointless mime-typing that was redundant to the semantics and/or REL, improved INPUT types, and so forth... as well as the stuff being shoved down our throats whether it makes sense or not like AUDIO and VIDEO. (which are / should be redundant to OBJECT - much like IMG which in the original plan for HTML 4 Strict's successor was also on the chopping block to be removed!).
Nothing wrong with that, you use the HTML 5 DOCTYPE it's still HTML 5 regardless of if you use those extra (pointless, inconsistent, redundant, mind-numbingly stupid) tags or not! Anyone who has a problem with that probably isn't qualified to write a single blasted line of HTML or CSS.
Sadly that seems to describe 80 to 90% of the people making websites right now, and for all intents and purposes 100% of the people who see benefits from things like HTML/CSS frameworks or CSS preprocessors. Not to overuse those two words again but such things -- like the "new" HTML 5 tags we're discussing here -- thrive on ignorance and ineptitude, preying on beginners to pack them full of sand before they ever even have a chance to learn to do things properly or even be able to form an informed opinion on the topic. A situation made all the worse by 90%+ of all web development of the past two decades following HTML 3.2 style browser-wars practices with the 4 tranny doctype slapped atop it. When people have their coding practices stuck in a 1997 mindset ignoring all the benefits introduced in '98, it's really easy to convince them that something fat, bloated, broken, and outright inept is "easier". Those who embraced the intent of HTML 4 Strict, the point of CSS being separate from HTML, and things like progressive enhancement and separation of presentation from content? Not as easily suckered in by the lies.
Part of why I think we need a new specification that is to HTML 5 as 4 strict was to 4 tranny or even HTML 3.2. Deprecating the pointless "structural" tags, along with getting rid of the redundancies and stuff let into the specification from 4 tranny that really have no business in a semantic markup specification -- like EMBED, AUDIO, VIDEO, IMG, custom hyphenated tags, etc, etc. Said specification doing more to hammer home the semantic meanings of the tags since it's clear grade school grammar classes haven't been doing their job since the 1970's.
But yeah, TLDR version? Go ahead, it's fine. In fact I -- and many others -- highly recommend ignoring those tags altogether.