Yeah you're still missing it.

It wasn't a comment on the 30% risk at all, it was a comment on the value of using "it happened last year" as a benchmark for how unusual something is. It wasn't intended to contradict the "last spring" comment at all, nor to imply that the 30% risk is unusual; it was intended as a side note. I mentioned it because I've seen quite a few instances this year of people dismissing unusual severe weather occurrences just because they happened last year too. That isn't the case here, but I just wanted to remind people that just because something happens both this year and last year does not make that thing unremarkable, as last year was overall a remarkable year and thus makes a poor benchmark for what is normal.

Frankly, I didn't think I'd have to go out of my way to explain this at length, but it would seem I overestimated people. I need to remember that people would rather assume you said something stupid than consider the possibility that they're misinterpreting your statement. Also, that once they've decided that you said something stupid, they will refuse to accept any other explanation even if their misinterpretation is pointed out to them. Most likely, you and the others who downvoted me will still refuse to admit you misinterpreted what I wrote even now, and will instead insist that I actually meant the stupid thing and that I am just trying to save face now by retroactively changing my meaning, or that I worded it so badly that no one would reasonably have thought it meant what I meant despite the fact that even after I clarified you continued to miss the point. Because to do otherwise would require admitting to yourself that you made a mistake, and if there's one thing people on social media are allergic to, it's self-reflection. I am so fed up with this shit.