My take on this...
The year before the £1.6m was announced, MRC funding for ME/CFS fell from the usual average of about £850,000 a year to less than £100,000 for the year before the announcement. Thus the average funding per year remained the same as it has always been. There are parliamentary questions revealing all these funding levels. Unless funding levels of more than £1m per year are maintained, the £1.6m will effectively represent a funding cut, from £850k per year, disguised as a one-off funding pot of £1.6m but with nothing the year before or after that funding pot. That is what I expect, but time will tell - it depends what funding is announced next. I'm not sure on the dates, but from recollection, if another £1m is not announced within the next few months, that would represent a funding cut.
I think it's telling and outrageous that this £1.6m pot has been presented as if it were a funding increase, because this is completely misleading. However, the nature of the funded projects is a dramatic improvement from what went before, and it effectively represents the first real MRC funding for biomedical (ie not 'psych') research. The Sjogren's research, and other research that doesn't purely address ME/CFS directly, is in my opinion still good and relevant research for us. I don't think the criticisms that I've read of the funded research projects are very reasonable, and I think those complaints are a counter-productive form of advocacy; instead, the issue that should be focused on is that if you average out the funding level year-by-year, this £1.6m pot is just the same level of funding that has been the case for the last 10-20 year, and it is nowhere near enough.
You are on exactly the right lines, in my opinion, in looking for comparisons of funding levels with other conditions, and the numbers of people affected by them, and if there were such a league table we would be at the very bottom. I think you'd find a ratio of something like 1:50 or 1:100 as compared with the funding levels per patient for the conditions at the top of the table. Reliable and credible comparison data on that question is a vitally important advocacy project for the UK, IMO, and it may need parliamentary questions and a fair bit of honest and rigorous work to determine a fair basis on which to compare the numbers.