Humanities desk
< February 21	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 23 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

February 22[edit]

When will the Pandemic classify as over?[edit]

Greetings to all contributors, editors and admin, I have a serious question in a deep regard of the pandemic that is Covid-19. The issue is that I still understand that there are remaiing cases in the world but scientist are trying to label it an Endemic but still isn't such. When will this officially end and is there any proper insight as to how it ends? I wanted to post this on the talk page of that article but it won't let me, please help me answer some questions cause I am at a loss here.(talk) 01:18, 22 February 2022 (UTC)SCPdude629[reply]

The classification of an outbreak as a "pandemic" is unofficial,^[1] so there is also no authority to classify a pandemic as being "over". Local health authorities may declare that the COVID-19 outbreak has no longer an epidemic status as far as they are concerned, which may not be a global outlook. --Lambiam 09:55, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

COVID-19 will become another recurrent disease that health systems and societies will have to manage. For example, the death toll from omicron seems to be similar in most countries to the level of a bad influenza season in northern hemisphere countries.... The era of extraordinary measures by government and societies to control SARS-CoV-2 transmission will be over. After the omicron wave, COVID-19 will return but the pandemic will not.

COVID-19 will continue but the end of the pandemic is near (19 Jan 2022) from The Lancet.

Alansplodge (talk) 11:00, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unofficial or not, the WHO, an organisation with some respect, did actually designate it as such and it's fair to expect to have it designated over at some point, though the process or even the designating party is probably uncertain. --Ouro (blah blah) 03:57, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Camp names for Camp 9-15 for Italian Wars of Prisoners in India from Second World War - urgent help needed[edit]

cross posted to WP:RDM. Please answer there. --Jayron 32 12:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

There was a camp at Sihore district in village DELAWADI (ABOUT 45 KM FROM BHOPAL), Madhya Pradesh, India. It housed Italian Prisoners of Wars (POWs) of Second World War for a few years.

After searching and speaking to British Library I managed the find that the ‘Camp number 9-16 housed Italian Prisoners of Wars’ in Bhopal, In India, but there is no information on camp number 9-15. We know that camp number 16 was hospital in Bhopal.

The Wikipedia confirms the above - https://wiki.fibis.org/w/POW_Camps_in_India

I would be grateful if someone from the community can help or direct me in the right direction to obtain the answer to below question:

camp names and/or location for camps 9-15 within Bhopal or which camp number represents the camp at Sihore district in village DELAWADI (ABOUT 45 KM FROM BHOPAL), Madhya Pradesh, India.

I look forward to receiving the community support on the above.

Yours Sincerely — Preceding unsigned comment added by IOW63 (talk • contribs) 11:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You only need to post your question on one reference desk. --Viennese Waltz 11:04, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know. I am sorry for posting the question int two places. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IOW63 (talk • contribs) 14:21, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"No evidence of Russian troops crossing the border"[edit]

I'm confused by conflicting information from reliable sources. Probably it isn't conflicting and I'm just misunderstanding. Our article on events in Donbas, citing Sky News, Repubblica, Newsweek, and The Guardian: "several independent media outlets confirmed that Russian forces were entering Donbas." BBC news article on the Ukraine crisis (near the bottom of the article): "There has as yet been no evidence of Russian troops crossing the border into the rebel-held areas of east Ukraine, despite Mr Putin's order to conduct what he calls peacekeeping functions." Is the BBC quietly contradicting all the other news outlets? Card Zero (talk) 22:34, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In a crisis the news is often confusing, and the way it is presented may add to the confusion. One issue may be that the news reports were written at different times. But I think the BBC should have used a formulation more in the line of “At the moment we have not yet seen evidence of ...". The fact that one has not seen such evidence does not mean it does not exist. Another issue is the definition of "Russian forces". Does this include mercenaries, or only troops that are part of the regular army? --Lambiam 00:03, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Right, yes. So far as I can tell it's like this:

Putin has ordered troops in,
The deputy foreign secretary told the press troops have not actually been sent in,
Some troops of some kind have been caught on video but might not be regular Russian army.

Card Zero (talk) 00:46, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Off topic

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Supposedly there have already been Russian troops in the area for years. --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:22, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Factually, there are US troops stationed in over 100 countries, including mine. But I'm not panicking yet. HiLo48 (talk) 05:18, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, those US troops are there legally. --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:03, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let's face it, most U.S. troops are in countries in the sort of "Nice country here, would be a shame if someone broke it" sort of way... --Jayron 32 11:46, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Just think how much better off the world would be if we hadn't joined World War II. --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:52, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fantastic non-sequitur, but okay. We wouldn't probably have been better off. --Jayron 32 16:17, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The question isn't “what would have happened if the US had not entered WWII?” Rather, the question is “What would those nations where US troops are / have been stationed since WWII have had to give up to pay for their own defense?” The obvious candidates are universal healthcare and welfare provisions … two things the US has not done particularly well by OECD standards. DOR (HK) (talk) 17:05, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those U.S. troops are mostly defending those countries against having leadership that is unfriendly to business interests in the U.S. The reason the U.S. doesn't have healthcare and welfare provisions has very little to do with the defense budget, and everything to do with the rich people in the U.S. convincing the marginally-less-than-totally-destitute people in the U.S. that it is in their interest to fuck over the people poorer than themselves. What the U.S. citizenry already pays in insurance premiums and co-pays and the like would completely fund a universal healthcare system several times over. The U.S. people have been falsely convinced they don't want such a system. --Jayron 32 17:10, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This question appears to be settled now. :( --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:18, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]