> early industrialisation coincided with significant improvements in survival, especially in towns (Buer, 2013; Davenport, 2020a; Landers, 1993; Wrigley et al., 1997)
> population growth rates in excess of 1% per year would have resulted in falling real wages and hunger in any previous period [...] the fact that wages kept pace at all with increasing population should be viewed as a major achievement (Crafts and Mills, 2020; Wrigley, 2011).
Davenport, Romola J. (2021). "Mortality, migration and epidemiological change in English cities, 1600–1870." International Journal of Paleopathology, 34, 37–49. PMC7611108.
That being said.
You cite a study implying (you, not the study) the Industrial Revolution was what lead to lower death rates, so it's all good.
But that's not what the study says:
> These patterns are better explained by changes in breastfeeding practices and the prevalence or virulence of particular pathogens than by changes in sanitary conditions or poverty. Mortality patterns amongst young adult migrants were affected by a shift from acute to chronic infectious diseases over the period.
"than by changes in sanitary conditions or poverty" [my emphasis]
But wait! there's more! from the same study:
> The available evidence indicates a decline in urban mortality in the period c.1750-1820, especially amongst infants and (probably) rural-urban migrants.
"especially amongst infants and (probably) rural-urban migrants" ...where is the industrial revolution here?
And if that was not enough:
>Mortality at ages 1-4 years demonstrated a more complex pattern, falling between 1750 and 1830 before rising abruptly in the mid-nineteenth century.
"rising abruptly in the mid-nineteenth century"
turns out industrial revolution did in fact raise mortality and death rates
