Yes I agree, as we found out with the pitiful covid vaccine trials (if you could even call them that!) the larger the sample size the more reliable the results tend to be.All this shows, is you clearly have no grasp of statistics. The blood clots are a 1 in 100000 chance, so you would need a sample size of 300000 to be sure to pick up this event. When you are talking about infection rates of between 1 in 100 and 1 in 4600 the smallest sample size you could use is just under 15000, so using well over 50000 like they do will give you the data you want.
Why do you keep basically repeating what I'm telling you, then claiming it's me that can't grasp stats! lol
You were the moron that said a larger sample size will give you the same results as a smaller one. Not me!
I've worked out what you're on about with your ONS "infection rate" thing now. As lewdy said it's not a stat that the media/gov really mention very often.
It's just a survey, and again the results are highly dependent on the number of tests being conducted. There could be tons of people in the community with the virus, but if not many tests are being conducted at that time the survey will show the opposite, a low prevalence/infection rate.
Anyway what are you actually trying to claim? That there's 46 x as many people with covid now than there was this time last year? LOOL
And even if this is the case it's not exactly a resounding endorsement for the vaccines ability to reduce transmission now is it? Remember this is the reason why we're all being told we must have it, to protect the vulnerable even if the virus personally poses us a negligible risk.
And before you start harping on about "oh the low death rate is because of the new wonder potion, me and my batty boy friends have all had injected into us".
How do we know the lower death rate(if exists, highly debatable) may not just be down to the virus mutating and becoming less toxic as it increases it's ability to transmit...? This is a common trend in virus mutation.
OK, class dismissed for the day.