Isn’t it exactly what army says?
Putting all other things aside: “how many” is not the same thing as ’which percentage of” precisely because even if 90% of 100 children per couple dies we still have 10 children per couple and growth of population.
If public health initiatives lowers “percentage of” surviving children and at the same time lowers “birth rate” we still can have ether option—decrease or increase—based on “percentage * rate >< 2”
And “if children are less likely to die, women get fewer of them” isn’t the same thing as “the number of children women get is inversely proportional to the probability that they survive”. My point still stands.
“How many” is not the same thing as “which percentage of”.
Isn’t it exactly what army says? Putting all other things aside: “how many” is not the same thing as ’which percentage of” precisely because even if 90% of 100 children per couple dies we still have 10 children per couple and growth of population.
If public health initiatives lowers “percentage of” surviving children and at the same time lowers “birth rate” we still can have ether option—decrease or increase—based on “percentage * rate >< 2”
What did I missed here?
And “if children are less likely to die, women get fewer of them” isn’t the same thing as “the number of children women get is inversely proportional to the probability that they survive”. My point still stands.