I mean, the whole "surprises" thing may be more rhetorical device than genuine feeling. I'd cut them a bit of slack. They're trying to knit together a pretty broad portfolio of important work into one newsletter. The Africa "surprise" was a way to pivot to: what development work should be done to support a growing African population.

> Well its not a surprise at all. we knew this. the gates knew this. Africans (as in currently living on the continent called Africa) die young.

Maybe it should have been a surprise to you, because dying young is not the reason Africa is the youngest continent. They have young people because Africans are still having children, unlike much of the rest of the world.

Young people dying tilts the population balance older, not younger.

OP said that Africans _die young_, not that the _young die_. Lowering the life expectancy lowers the average age if it's because the older don't live long.

But a pattern of dying young is not evidence that older people don't live long.

Dying raises the average age if you die below the average age, and lowers the average age if you die above the average age. Thus, a 16-year-old dying can only lower the average age if the average age was already less than 16. A four-month-old dying can only lower the average age if the average age was already less than 4 months. (Which, obviously, it can't be.)

Dying lowers life expectancy regardless of when you do it, and it has a stronger lowering effect the earlier you do it. The dying four-month-old has a really strong negative effect on life expectancy, but a strong "positive" effect on the average age. They're orthogonal[1] concerns.

[1] OK, not technically orthogonal. One will help predict the other, especially if you know the average age. But the point remains that a negative effect on life expectancy can be associated with any effect at all on the average age, because all effects of death on life expectancy are negative.

That's a good comprehensive description and I agree.

What's the propoganda here? I fail to understand ( serious). It seems all positive. Please provide facts.

Propaganda doesn’t have to have negative connotation. In this case “all positive” results for the foundation’s capital allocations could be indicative of propaganda.

Or it could be indicative of them doing a good job?

Yes of course. I am not choosing sides. We are both equally correct. Institutional propaganda slanders enemies and praises the self.

Propaganda can be positive or negative.

In the video interview, he prefaces the conversation when starting to talk by saying they framed it as surprises this year.