₦airaland Forum

snydergp: There u go again like I said u should use current upto date statistics when u try to assert your primative anti south african view which I've found in great numbers on this forum, like i said go to the latest stats that was released last month by the W.H.O and the south african health ministry

The only statistic I referenced was the prevalence rate. You and andrewza have both referenced the rate of new infections. Since the rate of new infection is going down that's good, but don't suggest that I made claims about the rate of new infections that I never did or that I claimed South Africa was not seriously tackling the problem.

I'm not on this site to rubish everything that people do in Nigeria but what I have a problem with is the blind patriotism and unfounded comments of some of ur country men and even u have stated on this forum.

lol, blind patriotism and unfounded comments like "Nigeria had a headstart in 1960." Whatever man.

It seems to me that on this current topic that people think south africa was build by whites and that black South Africans had nothing and no hand in its developement.

I'm not in denial that south africa is one of the world's most unequil sociaties. We know that white people still holds most of the country's economic wealth but that doesn't change the fact that they are considered under the S.A constitution as south african citizens so that point that some of u make that whites in south africa who are majority Afrikaner/Boers are europeans is actually outdated.

Yes most of our industries are still dominated by whites but that's changing, but the picture you're painting who don't even know anything about south africa's affirmative action policies are totally not true.

I haven't commented on what the role of blacks was in South Africa's development or economy, though I see that some other people have.

I've only alluded to and pointed out that many of the comparisons you were making on development to elevate your group over others were misleading and not in context simply because the history of the two countries is so different, especially regarding where each one started from in terms of their economy and infrastructure. South Africa definitely did not start only in 1960.

On the flipside Nigeria is actually over populated for its geographical size and that's not something to be proud of. South africa who is less populated and who is also bigger in terms of its geographical size compared to Nigeria will for obvious reasons offer better infrastructure and standards of living to its people of 50million

Who was bragging about Nigeria's population density (which isn't even that bad, by the way)?

Nigeria is africa's most populated and most poluted country but will never be the wealthiest, that one will eventually go to Congo DRC because of its size and proven natural resources only if they can stop there tribalist tendencies and the western medilling to keep it unstable so that they can milk its resources.

Stop this foolishness cause were all educated not just u my Blind Patriotic brother still trapped in tribalist tendencies.

Don't Believe In The Hype!!!

Being called a blind patriot or tribalist by you is silly. I think that applies more to you than myself.

andrewza: What wrong with that statement. HIV/AIDS is not the super life destroy it is any more. With treatment it is like nothing is wrong. Although there is no cure it can be managed with medication. People with HIV/AIDS live normal lives these days.

The part about how it's seen as a "lifestyle disease" (it's not, by the way) is not wrong, but the part about it "not being a big problem" is nonsense. Even apart from the issue of people dying from opportunistic infections associated with HIV, there are still other issues caused by it:

http://www.avert.org/aids-impact-africa.htm

A-town:
The cars in the first picture look "modern"

lol, yeah

Fake date on the picture. Not even any reason to think it's necessarily in Africa. I wonder if Sisi Kill was being sarcastic.

Interesting claim in the article in the opening post.

He should have gone into more detail about it though, since this is probably the first time most people are hearing this "history."

Mrs.Chima:
It shows your lack of comprehension skills. I said NON-AFRICANS know more about African history than many Africans. I also said in the same breath that it is a shame that non-Africans have to correct many of YOUR people when it come to African history and I also listed an example of whom I was referring to.

If it doesn't apply to you...why are you mad

Don't be a biatch.

Try to put these kinds of statements in proper context next time though. A non-African professor of African history at some university may know certain details of African history better than the average African and know certain things that the average African generally doesn't - for example, when this or that treaty was signed between an African group and a European representative, or what exactly was traded at some time in the 17th century between two different groups, etc., but there are certain things that that person simply can't know or understand unless he goes straight to the actual Africans for information and clarification. There are many instances where this applies with regard to African history.

And when you start to talk of non-professors/scholars etc., I would say that on some issues there's some pretty glaring ignorance on certain parts of African history from many non-Africans actually. There's also some ignorance from some Africans, but I doubt it generally outweighs that of the non-Africans.

wesley80: This is the exact problem I was trying to point out - you don't know sheet about what you're criticizing. He churns out dozens of prophecies each service to individuals and restores hope to hundreds of ordinary people that were hitherto hopeless and you criticize him over a single prophecy that made NL's headline? Lay your pride aside and choose to be informed.

Dude, this guy benefits financially from the services he provides, some of which are based on fraudulence, while STILL churning out prophecies of doom.

andrewza: The fact that he is emotional means he is proud of his country and all that is done. And his facts are still correct he is not lying.

He actually said it was foolish to think that "aids is such a big problem" in SA because "hiv/aids is treated like a lifestyle desease in S.A not a chronic disease burden."

That emotionality is messing up his sense of reason.

In the case of Nigeria, I can say that HIV/AIDS is a big problem in Nigeria regardless of how HIV/AIDS is treated and viewed there. I can say that unabashedly, because I'm not messing up my ability to reason over the AIDS issue in regards to Nigeria.

snydergp: Like I said before only a fool like u would argue like that. U bring up 2009/2010 stats about south africa's hiv rate and want me to accept that outdated facts as the truth about what is currently happening in South Africa.

If u were so informed and updated with current affairs u would have noticed that there is a W.H.O 1month ago that proofed that South africa is actaully revercing its hiv infection rates we currently have one of the worlds least mother to child affection rates due to all pregnant hiv positive woman receiving anti retrovirrals. It Just shows how foolish u trully are in still thinking that aids is such a big problem cause hiv/aids is treated like a lifestyle desease in S.A not a chronic desease burden u bafoon.

3.3% of population the size of Nigeria who doesn't even have a proper public healthcare system and who's stats can't even be trusted according to the World Health Organisation is nothing to be proud about.

That same south african presedent ur talking about is the same one who is also responsible for the worlds biggest hiv treatment and prevention program to date.

People living with aids in S.A is 5,6 million of our total population and the prevellence rate is decreasing year on year so I don't know where u got ur info from.

The question was about development u bring up sideline issues to hide ur mental retartness let's state proven well researched facts not that bull u just got out that Tree u just jumped out of.

Furthermore the world health organistions also claimed in recent reports that some Nigerian states are notorious for non co operation and that's why the world don't have accurret stats on your countries hiv prevellence statistics.

Nigeria is still rated the most corupt country in africa 3rd in the world and that is a fact u can't deny, so just go and inform yourself about a topic before u feel the urge to rubish other peoples fact backed opions.

1. The reference to the prevalence rate was for adults from age 15-49 and is based on South Africa's own National HIV Survey of 2008 and the UNAIDS report on South Africa from 2010 which gives very similar statistics. The South African Department of Health study of 2010 gives even worse (more scary) statistics but is a less general survey so I ignored that one. If you wanted the HIV and AIDS prevalence for all of the population from age 2 and above in SA in 2008, the number is around 10.9% based on the aforementioned studies but all the estimates from WHO, UNAIDS, etc. that put HIV/AIDS at around 3% to 4% for Nigeria are referencing the data for adults (see: http://www.unaids.org/en/Regionscountries/Countries/Nigeria/) aged 15 to 49, so the comparison was made using the 15-49 adult prevalence rate as the standard.

If I had compared the total population, not just those aged 15 to 49, I would have got a rate of around 2% (assuming the population of Nigeria was 154.7 million in 2009 as claimed by the UN), which would still be slightly less than one fifth of that of SA's 10.9% for 2009. It made no difference whether I used the stats for age 15 to 49 or included children because the ratios between the stats for the two countries would still be very similar as 3.6% (for age 15 to 49, going by the UNAIDS estimates) is still one fifth of 18%. If you have better data from 2011 that gives significantly different statistics for the two countries than those available you can provide that data.

I was never attempting to compare AIDS rates in the first place. But it's ironic that you state that 5.6 million are the number living with HIV and AIDS in SA when that statistic is from the exact same source that gives the adult 15 to 49 prevalence rate that I cited earlier (see: http://www.unaids.org/en/regionscountries/countries/southafrica/) and then go on to claim that you don't know where I got my statistics from.

On supposed underestimates of those living with or dying from AIDS, South Africa isn't infallible either:

"The survey had also had a fairly high rate of non-response with just 64% of all eligible participants agreeing to an HIV test. The effect of non-response on accuracy is uncertain. It is difficult to conclude whether those who refuse to be tested are more or less likely to have HIV. The only certain effect of the low response rate is that it increases uncertainty." - This is a description of South Africa's National HIV Survey of 2008, just google this if you need the source.

To suggest that the disparity in the stats would be due merely to alleged non compliance of some states in Nigeria is a weak argument. Anyone who looks at the stats for African countries knows that AIDS is generally far more serious in the southern part of the continent as far as percentages of the population than in West Africa. This is glaringly obvious and it almost doesn't matter which West African and Southern African countries one is comparing.

Of course Zuma is doing something significant to combat AIDS, he has to given the situation or he would be seen as grossly incompetent. Nigeria has been attempting very seriously to combat HIV/AIDS from the Obasanjo administration to the present as attested to by the WHO but is not doing that successfully due to a lack of adequate finances (even with outside support from international developmental agencies) at the current time, not any lack of initiative. Both countries are trying to combat the problem and SA is doing relatively better with its more serious problem given its more developed status, but I can at least say that no president of Nigeria was daft enough to confuse the issue and promote ignorance about HIV with statements about showers, unlike certain other presidents:

http://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/zuma-s-shower-theory-causing-confusion-1.273500

Moving on. . .

2. The fact is, your country voted into power a man that thought showering affected HIV yet you're claiming some kind of superiority because the current ruling party in South Africa was able to build off of the cushy, more comfortable developmental position established by the previous regimes.

You were also very silly to suggest that Nigeria had a developmental headstart over South Africa in 1960. There are no "well researched proven facts" in the world that could suggest such a ridiculous idea and no sane person could promote a so called "fact backed opinion" like that, but being the clown you are, you would make that claim shamelessly.

^^^

lol, a man is acting as a prophet of doom and you're defending him because?

Ironic that statistics is seen as being closer to computer science than physics when there are a whole slew of physics Ph.Ds that turned to computer science and became prominent in it and some physicists were involved in creating the first computers.

@ ekt bear

I'm pretty sure statistics in the U.S. is basically pure math with a specialization and programming is optional, and for computer science degrees, statistics based courses are optional, but in Nigeria and/or the UK the setup is different, hence the perception that statistics is closer to computer science there.

wtf is wrong with this guy

EzeUche: That is not true. Southern Cameroons is primarily made up of Ekoi and Efik. They have more in common with Eastern Nigeria than the rest of Cameroon.

Your vast knowledge of the different tribal groups stops at the River Niger.

I posted a link on this. Read the UN link clearly. It is not my claim, but something easily verifiable not only from that link to the official description of the place in the UN's non-represented peoples list, but also from any basic reading on the Southern Cameroons or from any ethno-linguistic map of the area.

Ki-Katanga:
http://www.afdb.org/fileadmin/uploads/afdb/Documents/Publications/The%20Middle%20of%20the%20Pyramid_The%20Middle%20of%20the%20Pyramid.pdf

The source for that study.

The 23% figure includes the "floating class" defined as people earning $2-4 per day, i.e. not technically in poverty. To me that's not the middle class.
Without the $4 and under per day (how $4 a day is middle class, I have no idea) the figure is 9.9% compared to 19.8% for South Africa.

If you took the middle class as being $10,000 per annum, I think you'd have something representative, but those figures aren't there.

Thanks. Anyway, the size of middle class has been changing recently, so new studies will probably be carried out in the near future.

Ki-Katanga:
a reflection of Nigeria having a very small middle class just a few very wealthy and many very poor

"Nigeria’s middle class accounts for about 23 per cent of its population, according to African Development Bank data."

http://www.thisdaylive.com/articles/survey-nigerias-middle-class-growing/99455/

^^^

But that's only if results from three major cities (Lagos, Abuja, Port Harcourt) are anything reasonable to go by.


More on the middle class:

http://www.hktdc.com/info/mi/a/ef/en/1X07XB5Y/1/Economic-Forum/Nigeria-S-Rising-Middle-Class-Marks-New-Waves-Of-Consumerism.htm

http://www.consultancyafrica.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=943:growing-middle-class-and-favourable-economic-conditions-push-nigerias-retail-sector-forward-&catid=82:african-industry-a-business&Itemid=266

Thomas Sankara

snydergp: Fool u don't even know me and u wanna tell me my own history. I've been to 9 countries on this continent stayed in Nairobi for 7 months so u must just shut up.

That's the problem with a few selfcentered Nigerians always think that u are the know it alls of africa that u hold all the answers and that other peoples points of view don't matter, maybe that's why ur country is in that state cause u preach democracy and freedom of speach but its only freedom of speach when ur voice is heard.

Fool u on talking about Aids as if your country don't have that problem. Nigeria can't even handle deseases like Yellow fever for wich there are vaccines readely avialible people are still affected by Polio in Nigeria a desease that S.A has eradicated 25years ago so just go and take a knap.

It seems that u can't even stick to a simple question answer me what has Mr Goodluck "Johnyboy" done for ur country.

Nigeria had a headstart in 1960 and what has ur socalled superior intellectualy supreme "goverments" done since than 0000? Only thing they gave u is a super sized ego that made u believe that 50years of "GOODLUCK" dictatorships is what ur intellectually supreme nation desires.

Ask yourself if Nigeria is your Uthopia why are there more than a million Nigerians including some of ur well educated living in South Africa.

South Africa has many problems but we work and try to solve ours what are u doing to solve your 160million inflated ego's

You actually think Nigeria had a developmental headstart to South Africa in 1960? Is this some kind of joke? I'm going to ignore that one because it's such an incomprehensibly dumb claim and it confirms what I said about you not knowing ANYTHING about the places you're talking about and whose history you foolishly want to attempt to compare.

I didn't talk about the rates of AIDS or what was being done to reduce it. The AIDS prevalence rate in Nigeria is 3.10% whereas in South Africa it's 18.10% so it would be a cheap shot from me if I attempted to compare AIDS rates. I merely laughed at the thought of a group of people who elected someone so dumb he thought a shower would affect AIDS claiming some kind of superiority over another group. There was obviously a better candidate somewhere in SA, just as there are better candidates than those that get elected in Nigeria, but how you can have somebody like that as president but claim superiority is astonishing.

Oh yeah, and when the British left, there was little to nothing on the ground to significantly tackle yellow fever, polio, malaria, and many other things, so the majority of efforts made to tackle those ills are through NIGERIAN effort and outreach. Not from colonizers.

The problem I have with all your delusional comparisons, is that you actually know nothing about the history of the place you can't stop talking about (Nigeria) but insist on comparing it developmentally or politically with South Africa in a such a way as to claim superiority when there are virtually NO similarities in the history of politics of the two countries.

I insist that if you did go to Lagos (I'm skeptical of the claim), you were unable to go to the richer areas and that's why you were spewing the garbage you were spewing earlier. On GEJ, there is a whole legion of debates on what GEJ has or hasn't achieved, but what I know is that unlike some presidents in certain other countries that shower to attempt remove the risk of AIDS and who get accused of ra[i]p[/i]e, he doesn't have a cushy, comfortable base that was already there from which to start from. Whether it's electricity or water or agriculture or disease, he has to tackle it practically from the ground up with the support of those Nigerians that are willing to help.