Not sure I entirely agree with all that, though I agree with the mood you’re in and coming from bashing the use of stats, let’s call it 
As a discipline, stats literally has its own math proofs. I mean, there are like cash prizes and stuff if you can ever debunk some 100 year old stats math proof. It’s a field based off proofs like the rest of mathematics is. This can also be demonstrated with stochastic empirical tests of large trials or iteration series with poor understanding of a system’s inner workings or outcome’s origins (i.e. you’re ignorant of at least some of the causes/inputs contributing to the confounding of prediction) where you look at how the set increasingly approaches the math proof as the set gets bigger. I definitely agree that stats is WIDELY abused, both by researchers who lack the expertise to use it right, peer reviewers who lack either the expertise or will power to even properly evaluate the methods let alone duplicate the research, and a media that tends to ignorantly jump on any new bandwagon that comes their way. Then there’s the fact peer review is generally not even remotely as thorough as I think people widely assume and the media asserts. History is replete with examples, many quite recent, of bad stats being exposed and that should have been originally when the research first came out but weren’t… and some are still unfortunately obscure debunkings after all the media hoopla that might have first publicized a piece of research. Stats is probably one of the most, if not the most, profound examples of the Dunning–Kruger Effect, and that’s significant (no pun intended) because stats is a foundation of most of the hard sciences and increasingly (thankfully) many of the softer ones now, too.
Let me kill the noise about the event: I was outside providing atmosphere for an auto dealer sales event. Not a crowded party, and everyone practiced ‘social distancing’. I had zero interactions with anyone.
Don’t take it personally. I wasn’t referring to you specifically. 
So during this whole pandemic I have luckily had a chance to mix on the RX2, Prime 4, CDJ 900 Nexus, and of course my SC5000s (all units from friends). The Denons just blow everything out of the water. Granted the CDJs are definitely on the older side, but the functionality, look/feel, and pure joy to play is unmatched with the SCs. Even the X1800 v DJM 900NXS2 was much more intuitive and smooth to mix on the X1800.
The Prime v RX2 is a bit closer because I really do enjoy the RX2 as a standalone unit (of course the Prime 2 exists), but still functionality wise and overall enjoyment I loved the Prime 4.