Can India Stop Its Children From Dying?

[salimpheku]

Relative to the decline pattern in China, India is about 20 years ahead of Pakistan in child mortality rates....so to be credible and consistent ....

You expect credibility & consistency from Communists?

 

[Nilgiri]

You expect credibility & consistency from Communists?

I don't expect it per se, it is more to illustrate for all neutral's passing by....certain ingrained hypocrisies.

 

[SBUS-CXK]

Don't blame them. How would one behave if their national father killed 55 millions and stopped 400 millions from being born? Moreover they have print currencies depicting mass murderers, both in our east and west.

These despos from our west import cancer medicines and east, well they are lined up outside India visa office day and night.

But what shocked me was—— the life expectancy and literacy rate of Indians were only the 70s level in China! OMG...

BTW, China's life expectancy in 1976 is 61 years. And literacy rate is about 80%. About 1 billion people....

How do you feel?
World Life Expectancy.com (WLE) shows that in one decade between 1960 and 70 (Mao did not die until 1976), life expectancy in Indonesia was 47.9, India 49.3 and China 61.7.

https://ilookchina.com/tag/life-expectancy/

Now

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chinese_cities_by_life_expectancy


@Syama Ayas @RayOfLight @salimpheku @Nilgiri

 

[DarX]

All Chinese ppl here should focus their advice first and foremost on your friend Pakistan who have around twice the level of mortality (and dropping slower) among its children at pretty much any age compared to India.

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.IMRT.IN?locations=IN-PK

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.DYN.MORT?locations=IN-PK

Relative to the decline pattern in China, India is about 20 years ahead of Pakistan in child mortality rates....so to be credible and consistent .... you ought to reference them first requiring major improvement before pointing a finger at India (not saying the latter should not be criticized...but you should try to attempt context and consistency to have credibility).

It is the single biggest slap to the Pakistani claim of their income poverty rates (their atrocious child mortality).....alongside their apparently much higher than expected population in their recent census....which will now have a negative cascade effect over time on pretty much all their socio-economic data.

This reality is the best karma for a certain vile racist posting in this thread, just like having to live with his country losing an entire wing that it inherited under Jinnah and co (and that wing now doing socio-economically better in such things as mortality as well compared to Pakistan, probably specifically because it separated from it). Cold hard reality is always the best dose for this character....hence he occupies his time trying to veil it and distract from it by unfettered ad-hominem at any opportunity on the bogeyman living rent free in his little mind....because the reality-medicine is quite a bitter one.

Lol. Indians do not tire of telling everyone about their day dreams of being a super power, and how there is no comparison between India and Pakistan. Now you bring up Pakistan? Why these somersaults son?

 

[Jlaw]

All Chinese ppl here should focus their advice first and foremost on your friend Pakistan who have around twice the level of mortality (and dropping slower) among its children at pretty much any age compared to India.

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.IMRT.IN?locations=IN-PK

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.DYN.MORT?locations=IN-PK

Relative to the decline pattern in China, India is about 20 years ahead of Pakistan in child mortality rates....so to be credible and consistent .... you ought to reference them first requiring major improvement before pointing a finger at India (not saying the latter should not be criticized...but you should try to attempt context and consistency to have credibility).

It is the single biggest slap to the Pakistani claim of their income poverty rates (their atrocious child mortality).....alongside their apparently much higher than expected population in their recent census....which will now have a negative cascade effect over time on pretty much all their socio-economic data.

This reality is the best karma for a certain vile racist posting in this thread, just like having to live with his country losing an entire wing that it inherited under Jinnah and co (and that wing now doing socio-economically better in such things as mortality as well compared to Pakistan, probably specifically because it separated from it). Cold hard reality is always the best dose for this character....hence he occupies his time trying to veil it and distract from it by unfettered ad-hominem at any opportunity on the bogeyman living rent free in his little mind....because the reality-medicine is quite a bitter one.

Your post belongs here:

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/indi...cially-when-comes-to-china-comparison.513815/

 

[Dungeness]

All Chinese ppl here should focus their advice first and foremost on your friend Pakistan who have around twice the level of mortality (and dropping slower) among its children at pretty much any age compared to India.

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.IMRT.IN?locations=IN-PK

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.DYN.MORT?locations=IN-PK

Relative to the decline pattern in China, India is about 20 years ahead of Pakistan in child mortality rates....so to be credible and consistent .... you ought to reference them first requiring major improvement before pointing a finger at India (not saying the latter should not be criticized...but you should try to attempt context and consistency to have credibility).

It is the single biggest slap to the Pakistani claim of their income poverty rates (their atrocious child mortality).....alongside their apparently much higher than expected population in their recent census....which will now have a negative cascade effect over time on pretty much all their socio-economic data.

This reality is the best karma for a certain vile racist posting in this thread, just like having to live with his country losing an entire wing that it inherited under Jinnah and co (and that wing now doing socio-economically better in such things as mortality as well compared to Pakistan, probably specifically because it separated from it). Cold hard reality is always the best dose for this character....hence he occupies his time trying to veil it and distract from it by unfettered ad-hominem at any opportunity on the bogeyman living rent free in his little mind....because the reality-medicine is quite a bitter one.

It is India that China is at odd with at this moment, and this thread is about dying Indian children at the rate of 2 per minute, a rather sad reality in a country that has a dream of being a superpower. I am not sure why you need to bring Pakistan to the discussion.

 

[Jlaw]

It is India that China is at odd with at this moment, and this thread is about dying Indian children at the rate of 2 per minute, a rather sad reality in a country that has a dream of being a superpower. I am not sure why you need to bring Pakistan to the discussion.

That's another Indian argument tactics. It's the "see this country is worst than us!"

 

[nair]

All Chinese ppl here should focus their advice first and foremost on your friend Pakistan who have around twice the level of mortality (and dropping slower) among its children at pretty much any age compared to India.

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.IMRT.IN?locations=IN-PK

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.DYN.MORT?locations=IN-PK

Relative to the decline pattern in China, India is about 20 years ahead of Pakistan in child mortality rates....so to be credible and consistent .... you ought to reference them first requiring major improvement before pointing a finger at India (not saying the latter should not be criticized...but you should try to attempt context and consistency to have credibility).

It is the single biggest slap to the Pakistani claim of their income poverty rates (their atrocious child mortality).....alongside their apparently much higher than expected population in their recent census....which will now have a negative cascade effect over time on pretty much all their socio-economic data.

This reality is the best karma for a certain vile racist posting in this thread, just like having to live with his country losing an entire wing that it inherited under Jinnah and co (and that wing now doing socio-economically better in such things as mortality as well compared to Pakistan, probably specifically because it separated from it). Cold hard reality is always the best dose for this character....hence he occupies his time trying to veil it and distract from it by unfettered ad-hominem at any opportunity on the bogeyman living rent free in his little mind....because the reality-medicine is quite a bitter one.

Why do you bother to reply.... Some people find solace in looking at the problem of its neighbour..... And kaptaan is the actual kaptaan of this gang .. ..

Let us accept we do have a prob....do not become a kaptaan and gang....

 

[Nilgiri]

But what shocked me was—— the life expectancy and literacy rate of Indians were only the 70s level in China! OMG...

BTW, China's life expectancy in 1976 is 61 years. And literacy rate is about 80%. About 1 billion people....

How do you feel?
World Life Expectancy.com (WLE) shows that in one decade between 1960 and 70 (Mao did not die until 1976), life expectancy in Indonesia was 47.9, India 49.3 and China 61.7.

https://ilookchina.com/tag/life-expectancy/

Now

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chinese_cities_by_life_expectancy


@Syama Ayas @RayOfLight @salimpheku @Nilgiri

The life expectancy data from the strongest communist period is susceptible to data manipulation (mortality rates especially can be manipulated routinely when you dont care about transparency - same thing happened in the USSR). For longest time we didn't even know the true extent of the great leap forward and cultural revolution...so how do mortality figures under same periods suddenly gather more credibility?

From 90s onwards Chinese socio-economic data started becoming more credible given the country started to open up and there is more 3rd party verification.....but its still not perfect of course. This is why there are some interesting ramps and plateaus in World Bank and UN data for China mortality and thus life expectancy (really a conveyance of PRC official figures)...whereas there is more steady increase in most developing countries.

Lol. Indians do not tire of telling everyone about their day dreams of being a super power, and how there is no comparison between India and Pakistan. Now you bring up Pakistan? Why these somersaults son?

So if a country does not aspire to be a superpower, its mortality rate is allowed to be twice or thrice or X times more than a superpower/superpower aspirer?...and should not be given any attention? That's a pretty terrible argument.

The USSR had atrocious socio-economic development for large parts of its early superpower aspiration phase. Read up the holdomor for example. Same goes for PRC during its ascent under the Mao regime.

All I'm saying is if people want to be credible, they ought to a) know what a superpower means b) criticize all perceived major powers, super/ultra/regular or not....fairly. Singling one out ruins credibility and consistency.

 

[wiseone2]

But what shocked me was—— the life expectancy and literacy rate of Indians were only the 70s level in China! OMG...

BTW, China's life expectancy in 1976 is 61 years. And literacy rate is about 80%. About 1 billion people....

How do you feel?
World Life Expectancy.com (WLE) shows that in one decade between 1960 and 70 (Mao did not die until 1976), life expectancy in Indonesia was 47.9, India 49.3 and China 61.7.

https://ilookchina.com/tag/life-expectancy/

Now

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chinese_cities_by_life_expectancy


@Syama Ayas @RayOfLight @salimpheku @Nilgiri

Chinese data in the 1960 and 1970 are highly suspicious
officials would lose their lives if the data is bad

 

[Nilgiri]

It is India that China is at odd with at this moment, and this thread is about dying Indian children at the rate of 2 per minute, a rather sad reality in a country that has a dream of being a superpower. I am not sure why you need to bring Pakistan to the discussion.

So the logic is as long as a country is not in confrontation with China, its socioeconomics should be ignored?

Only way you can help a friend/ally, is to first highlight the problems they face rather than sugar coat and ignore. Such a reality check was physically administered to this same country in 1971. Yet I see not one Chinese member starting even one thread to genuinely create a discussion why Pakistan's general health metrics are 20 years behind India....even with claimed superiority in income poverty and sanitation (either both stand or both fall, one cannot without the other).

In contrast focusing on your opponents excessively only helps them by spurring them to improve. Case in point India improving its corruption, Human Development and institutional indices at much higher rate over the last 5 years compared to the 10 years that preceded it. Don't you wish the same more for an ally like Pakistan? Or treat with kid gloves forever - to their detriment?

All superpower dreamers in such phases have had and still have sad realities, including China, Russia, US , UK....you name it . If you want to debate which realities are more sad (also which realities are even allowed to be published, investigated and explored), that is another topic....but its not by any stretch of the imagination limited to one country.

 

[SBUS-CXK]

The life expectancy data from the strongest communist period is susceptible to data manipulation (mortality rates especially can be manipulated routinely when you dont care about transparency - same thing happened in the USSR). For longest time we didn't even know the true extent of the great leap forward and cultural revolution...so how do mortality figures under same periods suddenly gather more credibility?

From 90s onwards Chinese socio-economic data started becoming more credible given the country started to open up and there is more 3rd party verification.....but its still not perfect of course. This is why there are some interesting ramps and plateaus in World Bank and UN data for China mortality and thus life expectancy (really a conveyance of PRC official figures)...whereas there is more steady increase in most developing countries.



So if a country does not aspire to be a superpower, its mortality rate is allowed to be twice or thrice or X times more than a superpower/superpower aspirer?...and should not be given any attention? That's a pretty terrible argument.

The USSR had atrocious socio-economic development for large parts of its early superpower aspiration phase. Read up the holdomor for example. Same goes for PRC during its ascent under the Mao regime.

All I'm saying is if people want to be credible, they ought to a) know what a superpower means b) criticize all perceived major powers, super/ultra/regular or not....fairly. Singling one out ruins credibility and consistency.

Chinese data in the 1960 and 1970 are highly suspicious
officials would lose their lives if the data is bad

About 1960-1970 years of Chinese data. I think we need more thought and then decide whether to believe it or not.

The population of China was about 450 million in 1949. By 1976 this figure would be about 1 billion. China began its one-child policy in 80s. The population is now 1.37 billion.

Simply put. 1949-1976 years. The population of China has increased by 500 million. Assume that all data in the Mao period is not believable. Well, China's average life expectancy now (76), literacy rate (99%) started in 90s?

But even more puzzling is - why did WLE decide to adopt data from the Mao period?

 

[Nilgiri]

Why do you bother to reply.... Some people find solace in looking at the problem of its neighbour..... And kaptaan is the actual kaptaan of this gang .. ..

Let us accept we do have a prob....do not become a kaptaan and gang....

If chinese trolls want to be hypocrites eternally, they ought to be pointed out for sake of everyone else esp neutrals (I don't care for their responses to it - nothing to learn or gain from those). Plus it only took a minute for me to post it.

As for the kaptaan fellow, its fun to expose him too....again with just cpl seconds of posting.

I don't expend long posts on this forum anymore in general, waste of time and effort.

Yes we have a big socio-economic problem still (though its getting addressed now faster than it has in past at least), holding mirrors to others has no bearing on that. But former is not the point of my posts here....the credibility of such is only established in such a thread when its started by a neutral non-biased, non-troll poster that is from a country that actually has both good socio-economic development and good transparency too (they go hand in hand)....so they are actually worth aspiring to and learning from as a whole.

But even more puzzling is - why did WLE decide to adopt data from the Mao period?

Some data is better than no data. Say if the data quality threshold is acceptable by say 1995, we at least want some idea of where the country claims most of the increases happened in the more opaque period before that. But it does not change the specific accuracy/precision being questionable for various periods of it....simply because we have no idea about it and one would be wise not to take at face value.

IIRC, China own health metrics did not increase much in the 80s (just gradual increase) compared to 60s and 70s when the fervour was there to attach it to Mao. Was it the reality on the ground, or was it designed to illustrate that way? One child policy also played a role in it too. What matters most now is China has improved its institutional credbility a lot more and we can thus trust the data it gives these days more than before....and still learn from the reasons why it is so.

 

[DarX]

So if a country does not aspire to be a superpower, its mortality rate is allowed to be twice or thrice or X times more than a superpower/superpower aspirer?...and should not be given any attention? That's a pretty terrible argument.

The USSR had atrocious socio-economic development for large parts of its early superpower aspiration phase. Read up the holdomor for example. Same goes for PRC during its ascent under the Mao regime.

All I'm saying is if people want to be credible, they ought to a) know what a superpower means b) criticize all perceived major powers, super/ultra/regular or not....fairly. Singling one out ruins credibility and consistency.

Haha! What a funny argument. Nobody is questioning India's aspiration to become a superpower. The only point here is for Indians to keep their loud mouths shut if they don't have the resources or capabilities as yet. Otherwise, it becomes a fact that the "super power aspirer" is nothing but a fraud.

Btw, if Indians want some credibility, THEY need to

a) know what a superpower means. Giving examples of Soviet Union, which was a superpower but it also imploded under the weight of its own ambitions, and examples of Mao regime, which had to be removed to allow the PRC to grow to what it is today, doesn't really show one's grasp of this concept.

b) stop making false comparisons, gloating on other's failings, and then giving apologetic arguments when they are shown a mirror. Do you really think the Indians are the most altruistic nation in the world?

 

[SBUS-CXK]

If chinese trolls want to be hypocrites eternally, they ought to be pointed out for sake of everyone else esp neutrals (I don't care for their responses to it - nothing to learn or gain from those). Plus it only took a minute for me to post it.

As for the kaptaan fellow, its fun to expose him too....again with just cpl seconds of posting.

I don't expend long posts on this forum anymore in general, waste of time and effort.

Yes we have a big socio-economic problem still (though its getting addressed now faster than it has in past at least), holding mirrors to others has no bearing on that. But former is not the point of my posts here....the credibility of such is only established in such a thread when its started by a neutral non-biased, non-troll poster that is from a country that actually has both good socio-economic development and good transparency too (they go hand in hand)....so they are actually worth aspiring to and learning from as a whole.



Some data is better than no data. Say if the data quality threshold is acceptable by say 1995, we at least want some idea of where the country claims most of the increases happened in the more opaque period before that. But it does not change the specific accuracy/precision being questionable for various periods of it....simply because we have no idea about it and one would be wise not to take at face value.

IIRC, China own health metrics did not increase much in the 80s (just gradual increase) compared to 60s and 70s when the fervour was there to attach it to Mao. Was it the reality on the ground, or was it designed to illustrate that way? One child policy also played a role in it too. What matters most now is China has improved its institutional credbility a lot more and we can thus trust the data it gives these days more than before....and still learn from the reasons why it is so.

Well, as we now know, the life expectancy in India in 1970 is 49. So what do you think China's life expectancy is in 70s?

The key is who will see the data? Mao Zedong in the world to promote China's life expectancy? Or do you think the Chinese in 70s care about life expectancy?. So Mao Zedong needs to make "data"?

China did almost nothing in 80s. 10 years of complete loss. and China's Maoists use the 80s inaction to attack Deng. oh, the only thing that China has opened up is the world arms market. China's arms exports began in the Iran-Iraq war, the Thailand-Vietnam War, and Saudi regional ambitions.