If you don't understand that the likelihood of an award is more a function of the written influencing skills of the nominator than the deeds of the nominee than you really haven't been paying attention. That said, why not let these individuals have their "moment", especially the usual smattering of lolipop ladies and cat wardens. Bravery awards are fully recognised under a different system to the New Years honours list so comparing the two is a specious exercise.
The apparent disproportion of Officers to Enlisted in these awards is also transparently obvious - if you are in a command position or position of ultimate responsibility you are more likely to be making the kinds of decisions that get you noticed and recognised. Of course it's the team that does the graft and executes the real work, but somebody somewhere takes the resposibility for that. If you don't understand this then somewhere along the way the principles of military leadership have passed you by.
It's nothing new of course, ever since I remember first reading these lists, X years ago, people have been complaining that Nobby from the MT got nothing, whereas that useless Officer in HQ got an MBE. I suspect that those who object so vociferously to Officers getting awards are all closet republicans anyway. When there's an Armed Forces Union we can all get an award and feel special, until then, those with the ultimate responsibility of command will probably continue to get the majority.