Bill & Melinda deliver.

[vetran]

Humbling to read it makes many of us seem insignificant.

https://www.gatesnotes.com/Health/Wh..._&WT.tsrc=BGLI

worth a read because if only we could deliver this stuff.

[SueEllen]

For those who can't be bothered to read the article -

So the next question was, why were so many children dying?

Around 18 percent of the deaths were caused by non-communicable conditions, such as cancer and cardiovascular problems. The large majority—82 percent—of the deaths were caused by communicable diseases, such as diarrhea and malaria, and health problems that their mothers experienced—and exacerbated by risk factors including malnutrition. (This 18:82 ratio still holds true today.)

[eek]

For those who can't be bothered to read the article -

So the next question was, why were so many children dying?

Around 18 percent of the deaths were caused by non-communicable conditions, such as cancer and cardiovascular problems. The large majority—82 percent—of the deaths were caused by communicable diseases, such as diarrhea and malaria, and health problems that their mothers experienced—and exacerbated by risk factors including malnutrition. (This 18:82 ratio still holds true today.)

A better quote is

In 1950, some 20 million children died. In 1990, it was down to 12 million children, even though more babies were being born. By 2000, the number had dropped to fewer than 10 million. By 2019, it was below 5 million.

Your quote is actual not answered within the article. How if the number of children is increasing and the number of deaths dropping has the percentage of deaths from non-communicable conditions also dropped? Everything tells me that as other causes of death decrease the percent of deaths do to non-communicable conditions must be increasing.