I wonder how many commenters actually read the article posted here. The validity of this general statement is something worth debating, for sure, but in this pa

I wonder how many commenters actually read the article posted here. The validity of this general statement is something worth debating, for sure, but in this particular case, it doesn't seem like that Chairman Phillipson "doesn't know what he's talking about", as the author seems to be suggesting. But rather, he's trying to defend his political position, for some political aims (remember that he's a politician now, instead of an academic publishing a paper). It would be quite untenable (though of course not impossible), for a chairman to join force with opinions bashing the results published by his own agency, especially when some clear political antagonism exists. In many situations, it's not that the person doesn't know what they're talking about or is "bluffing", but that they are deliberately presenting a position that fits their current role and benefits them in some way. I totally agree that the former does happen, but those two things are really distinct, and if the author conflates those two and throws out a blanket claim that "stats is hard", it's not really helpful.