Why do you keep acting as though you're teaching me something about the relevance of sample sizes.Working out how many people are infected compared to deaths is hardly complex modelling.
Rather than wasting everyone's time, Google "working out sample size and margin of error" then Google sample size needed compared to rarity of event" put your new found knowledge together and work out if 60,000 samples is enough samples and see if there is anyway the margin or error could be +-3000%
It was you that claimed that you can "have more confidence" in the results from a larger sample size but a smaller one will give the same results. You daft little menstrual stain.
You also said this regarding the ONS infection rate figs
"They test a group of people at random and see how many of this group test positive for covid"
Please provide a link to this data. As I have a feeling you're wrong about the methodology used by the ONS here too.
And for the 10th time. there is no real world data that exists to show the vaccine is currently having any impact on deaths or transmission in the UK.
Cases/infection rates are higher this year than last - this data cannot be used as evidence that the vaccine is reducing transmission.
Do you accept what the mainstream experts are saying about the new variant being significantly more transmissible than the previous one?
If so, do you accept there's a possibility that this variant is also less toxic/deadly than the previous one?
If you answer yes to both of these questions. Do you then accept if the death rate is lower now than last year (debatable) this could be down to the possibility of the new mutation being less deadly?
If you can't/won't answer those questions, then seriously just fk off. Because you're nothing more than a troll at this point and not a very entertaining one either.