The OP was quite explicitly about QM implying there is a fundamental randomness in nature. So that is the viewpoint to be addressed. It is a metaphysical query in which the linguistic usage is relevant rather than merely a statistical modelling issue.
It's analogous. It's actually even more-so the case when your particles are indistinguishable (as in QM). Then an individual particle becomes even more meaningless in terms of the way we view particles intuitively (in fact, superposition of states comes directly from indistinguishability).
So the way the viewpoint is being addressed is that essentially it tells us nothing about fundamental randomness in nature, only about the story of our access to it. It doesn't tell us what we can't predict. It tells what we can predict (which is quantum systems, not quantum particles). And then we see that manifested in applications (electron tunneling microscope, optical tweezers, superconfuction, MRI, etc).