Alcohol is the only thing keeping me moderately (in)sane at this moment in time. I understand why they’re doing it but goodness, there’s no way they could manage that in the UK. There’d be riots.
Even in Dubai they're keeping the alcohol shops open! They're doing a roaring trade with all the bars closed.
Does anyone have a clear picture on number of people recovered in the UK. I'm not sure if that stat is being released every day, only the total number infected and number who didn't make it. It is very important data in judging the severity of cases each nation is testing for IMO.
and they are truly staggering. At the moment 88% of the cases concluded in the UK of recorded cases are ending in death. This cannot possibly be right, not even close, but presumably it reflects the relatively long period of the illness for those that have sufficiently serious symptoms to be tested so that the deaths come early and the recoveries later.
This is the problem with the particular disease -
1) It hits a small number very hard. 2) A minority of that number die. 3) But a substantial number of those hit hard need serious medical care over a long period of time.
*This* is what causes the medical systems to backup and be overwhelmed.
Yes, that is the problem.
In Britain we are as a policy not testing less severe cases, telling them to self isolate. Neither are we testing people who recover to ensure that they are clear and no longer a risk to others. As such it is hard to report the recovered as other countries have.
Also they are being told to self-isolate only for a week, as far as I'm aware. Is there any evidence that that is long enough? I suspect it's a hangover from the crazy policy of allowing everyone to get it so that we could develop "herd immunity".
It's a week from developing symptoms? If you still have symptoms after that, common sense suggests you continue to stay away.
Well, that's not the advice. The advice is that it's OK to stop self-isolating after a week even if you have a cough.
But what I'm asking about is whether there is any scientific basis for people no longer being infectious after a week.
We all project our own tastes! I'd second The Man in the High Castle (Amazon) series 1 and 2, and the Danish dramas The Killing and The Bridge are just as good as nearly everyone said (iplayer, I think) - all three recommended for depth of characters as much as plot. Fleabag was good amoral fun if you're not too shocked by the first 10 minutes.
Two whose names escape me but others will remember (help!) were the US series on a returning American prisoner of Islamic State (has he been brainwashed?) and the one about a woman who falls for a much younger man. The former requires a certain amount of idientification with the CIA as basically good guys, the latter is loved by many (including me) but younger viewers tended to despise it - but the plot in the former is great and the latter is much more subtle than the simple thesis suggests.
For gritty Middle East drama, Fauda is better than Homeland. I agree with The Bridge; excellent TV.
For periods of history that don’t often get dramatised, the White Queen/White Princess (wars of the roses) series and Ekaterina (Catherine the great) are worth a look, although the first series of the latter seems to have disappeared from Amazon. It’s surely still on YouTube.
Two French series are definitely worth a look - The Bureau (Homeland with realism; when it was shown to the French secret service it got a standing ovation) and Spiral (crime/legal drama with lots of personality)
Monk (think autistic Colombo) is worth a look for light relief.
Outlander is well made, if you can cope with the premise, as are the early seasons of Vikings, before it went ridiculous.
The Ambassador is now on Amazon and is good drama, as well as an insight into Anglo-irish relations twenty years back.
Somebody I know in the shadowy spooky word says The Bureau is the most life-like TV series he has seen.
I can believe it (and as I said it was acclaimed by the DGSE); not everything goes right, they show the back office boring grunty work as well as the in-the-field action, and spend a fair bit of time developing the characters and their personalities, including the damaging effects of their jobs on their lives. The use of technology etc. is impressive but seems realistic, including its limitations. And there are some interesting scenes about their relations with other secret services, including the CIA.
We all project our own tastes! I'd second The Man in the High Castle (Amazon) series 1 and 2, and the Danish dramas The Killing and The Bridge are just as good as nearly everyone said (iplayer, I think) - all three recommended for depth of characters as much as plot. Fleabag was good amoral fun if you're not too shocked by the first 10 minutes.
Two whose names escape me but others will remember (help!) were the US series on a returning American prisoner of Islamic State (has he been brainwashed?) and the one about a woman who falls for a much younger man. The former requires a certain amount of idientification with the CIA as basically good guys, the latter is loved by many (including me) but younger viewers tended to despise it - but the plot in the former is great and the latter is much more subtle than the simple thesis suggests.
The first is probably Homeland? Its good fun but does get sillier the more series you watch, which is true of most high action series.
The latest and final series of Homeland is excellent. I'll be watching it tonight.
Agreed. It was good at the start, but the Damian Lewis/Brodie story had nowhere to go. Once they moved on from that it's got a lot better.
We all project our own tastes! I'd second The Man in the High Castle (Amazon) series 1 and 2, and the Danish dramas The Killing and The Bridge are just as good as nearly everyone said (iplayer, I think) - all three recommended for depth of characters as much as plot. Fleabag was good amoral fun if you're not too shocked by the first 10 minutes.
Two whose names escape me but others will remember (help!) were the US series on a returning American prisoner of Islamic State (has he been brainwashed?) and the one about a woman who falls for a much younger man. The former requires a certain amount of idientification with the CIA as basically good guys, the latter is loved by many (including me) but younger viewers tended to despise it - but the plot in the former is great and the latter is much more subtle than the simple thesis suggests.
The first is probably Homeland? Its good fun but does get sillier the more series you watch, which is true of most high action series.
The latest and final series of Homeland is excellent. I'll be watching it tonight.
Homeland was ludicrous from start to finish, watchable at the start but not by the later series. I haven’t seen the final one.
It's very up-to-date. Peace talks with theTaliban opposed by the Afghan government.
Off topic - like @Andy_JS I have watched very little TV over the past few years so have missed out on pretty much all the dramas that people praise.
A girl cannot live on Midsomer Murder repeats alone. I’ve just started on Broadchuch, which is very good - though not exactly cheering.
Now, of course, is the perfect time for all that catching up.
A list of PB’ers Top 10 / 20 dramas / films / documentary series would be much appreciated. I have Netflix and Amazon Prime. Thanks very much.
I have been watching BFIplayer, via their subscription streaming service. £4.95 a month, with a free 2 week trial, and can cancel any time. Some great fare away from the usual Netflix stuff.
I watched Walkabout (1971) yesterday, and what a beautiful and elegiac film it was. Aniara (2019) too, a very thoughtful Sci Fi in Swedish. There are some great French, German and Italian classics too.
I am very tempted by BFI must admit
Not all of it is of equal interest, and some stuff I abandon, but there are some gems. I prefer films centering around character rather than special effects, and appreciate the distillation of ideas found in a film to the bloated ramblings of mini-series.
Their pay per view films are good too.
I dislike films too where violence is seen as the solution rather than the problem. That doesn't mean that films need avoid violence, but too much American mainstream cinema is about killing people to resolve the plot. That famous Christmas movie, for example.
Old films with lots of dialogue and no special effects are my favourite, I might sign up.
Though Aniara had good special effects, and Walkabout famously little dialogue!
Watching Walkabout when I was at school it definitely wasn't the dialogue that made an impression!
I once went out with a dead ringer for Jenny Agutter in her prime. Think American Werewolf in London, nurses uniform period....
Any list of great TV that omits Succession is... Well, not s list of great TV.
You are probably right - I haven`t watched it because I can`t get for free yet (I don`t think). I`ve hear great things about it and really want to watch it.
You have frequently said you would have voted for Hilary Clinton in 2016 and would vote Trump against Bernie Sanders which I understand.
Would you vote for Trump against Biden or would the VP nominee make a difference so for instance would you support Trump/Pence over Biden/Warren or Biden/Harris?
I would probably vote for Biden/Harris over Trump/Pence but not Biden/Warren yes. I would have voted for Bloomberg with some enthusiasm but none of the other Democrats did anything much for me, however I am not American so it does not really matter
Thanks - actually pretty much what I expected. As you say, it doesn't much matter - just Sunday lunchtime speculation.
I think the VP picks will have more significance than usual this time. Trump needs Pence to keep the traditional GOP on side and I suspect Pence has had much more influence and involvement in decision making than some VPs.
Pence could well run himself in 2024 (he'd only be 65) but it's not easy for the incumbent VP to succeed a two-term President - I know Harry Truman and George HW Bush did but Gore failed in 2000 and Nixon in 1960 and to be fair Truman didn't contest 1952 and George H W Bush lost in 1992.
Yes, while most Presidents normally get re elected, especially after only 1 term of their party in the White House, most Vice Presidents lose when they try to win the Presidency themselves. Hubert Humphrey in 1968 is another example of that.
But then, that’s also true of Adlai Stevenson in 1952 and John McCain in 2008, neither of whom were vice-president. And of course Clinton in 2016...
True, it just happens that Vice Presidents almost always run after 8 years of their party in the White House when the President cannot run again due to term limits and the mood is for change. The exception being Mondale who ran in 1984 after Carter lost to Reagan after just 1 term (Mondale still lost and Reagan was re elected anyway) and Biden who decided not to run in 2016 but is now challenging Trump as likely Democratic nominee
And, in a sense, Nixon in 1968 (who'd lost as a current VP in 1960 but won as an ex-VP in 1968).
A few ex-VPs have also failed to do what Biden looks to have done and get the nomination - e.g. Quayle ran in 2000 but withdrew before the first primaries.
Homeland should have been a one series thing. It was a great tale and you weren't sure who was a goodie or baddie. After that, I didn't care.
And having a returning serviceman with PTSD worrying everyone about his stability and loyalty one minute and then running as Vice President the next was just lame. Americans must be able to tolerate such leaps of imagination but I am sure most Brits were going WTF?
Of @Stocky’s list I have seen one series of Fargo and the pilot of Breaking Bad. I might catch up with some of the others after I retire.
It's a good list. He missed out:
The West Wing (especially for us lot) Southland Top Boy This Is Us When They See Us 24 (if dated now)
I’ve not seen any of those.
You've never seen The West Wing?
Really?!
No. I watch very little TV.
Alastair, please stop what you are doing, sit down, and at the very least watch The West Wing, The Sopranos and then The Wire.
Then we can talk.
The west wing is just dreadful
i can`t imagine why you think that. It is superbly scripted and acted, and addictive. I`ve watched it three times and give it a couple more years and I`ll watch it again. Why don`t you like it?
Does anyone have a clear picture on number of people recovered in the UK. I'm not sure if that stat is being released every day, only the total number infected and number who didn't make it. It is very important data in judging the severity of cases each nation is testing for IMO.
and they are truly staggering. At the moment 88% of the cases concluded in the UK of recorded cases are ending in death. This cannot possibly be right, not even close, but presumably it reflects the relatively long period of the illness for those that have sufficiently serious symptoms to be tested so that the deaths come early and the recoveries later.
This is the problem with the particular disease -
1) It hits a small number very hard. 2) A minority of that number die. 3) But a substantial number of those hit hard need serious medical care over a long period of time.
*This* is what causes the medical systems to backup and be overwhelmed.
Yes, that is the problem.
In Britain we are as a policy not testing less severe cases, telling them to self isolate. Neither are we testing people who recover to ensure that they are clear and no longer a risk to others. As such it is hard to report the recovered as other countries have.
Also they are being told to self-isolate only for a week, as far as I'm aware. Is there any evidence that that is long enough? I suspect it's a hangover from the crazy policy of allowing everyone to get it so that we could develop "herd immunity".
It's a week from developing symptoms? If you still have symptoms after that, common sense suggests you continue to stay away.
Well, that's not the advice. The advice is that it's OK to stop self-isolating after a week even if you have a cough.
But what I'm asking about is whether there is any scientific basis for people no longer being infectious after a week.
Does anyone have a clear picture on number of people recovered in the UK. I'm not sure if that stat is being released every day, only the total number infected and number who didn't make it. It is very important data in judging the severity of cases each nation is testing for IMO.
and they are truly staggering. At the moment 88% of the cases concluded in the UK of recorded cases are ending in death. This cannot possibly be right, not even close, but presumably it reflects the relatively long period of the illness for those that have sufficiently serious symptoms to be tested so that the deaths come early and the recoveries later.
This is the problem with the particular disease -
1) It hits a small number very hard. 2) A minority of that number die. 3) But a substantial number of those hit hard need serious medical care over a long period of time.
*This* is what causes the medical systems to backup and be overwhelmed.
Yes, that is the problem.
In Britain we are as a policy not testing less severe cases, telling them to self isolate. Neither are we testing people who recover to ensure that they are clear and no longer a risk to others. As such it is hard to report the recovered as other countries have.
Also they are being told to self-isolate only for a week, as far as I'm aware. Is there any evidence that that is long enough? I suspect it's a hangover from the crazy policy of allowing everyone to get it so that we could develop "herd immunity".
It's a week from developing symptoms? If you still have symptoms after that, common sense suggests you continue to stay away.
Well, that's not the advice. The advice is that it's OK to stop self-isolating after a week even if you have a cough.
But what I'm asking about is whether there is any scientific basis for people no longer being infectious after a week.
There are lots of studies investigating virus shedding post symptom-onset and there is evidence of people still shedding the virus 3-weeks later. Again like anything it is a trade-off. I imagine because most people live in households of more than 1 person, the 14-day cut-point will work reasonably well for the first person at least. If someone is symptomatic beyond day 14 then common sense would suggest to keep on isolating. More needs to be done here to provide further guidance I think. The NHS has launched its 111 text messaging service so this might help providing more patient-centred guidance.
"With the UK Debt Management Office having to resort to almost daily auctions to satisfy the Government’s needs, it late last week took the unprecedented step of consulting investors on what maturities might sell, rather than as usual dictating the maturity that best suits the Government. To many it looked like a sign of desperation. The risks of a classic liquidity/ sovereign debt crisis grow by the day."
Complete nonsense!!
Gilt rates at 0.36%...
This is bollocks on almost every level I've been a sell side sovereign bond analyst for over 20 years - the UK DMO (every DMO in fact) consults the GEMMS all the time about investor demand - they even publish a meeting calendar and then the minutes of the meeting afterwards. The auction calendar is available for anyone to view on their website too and it hasn't changed from what was originally announced - although increases are clearly coming of course....
Does anyone have a clear picture on number of people recovered in the UK. I'm not sure if that stat is being released every day, only the total number infected and number who didn't make it. It is very important data in judging the severity of cases each nation is testing for IMO.
and they are truly staggering. At the moment 88% of the cases concluded in the UK of recorded cases are ending in death. This cannot possibly be right, not even close, but presumably it reflects the relatively long period of the illness for those that have sufficiently serious symptoms to be tested so that the deaths come early and the recoveries later.
This is the problem with the particular disease -
1) It hits a small number very hard. 2) A minority of that number die. 3) But a substantial number of those hit hard need serious medical care over a long period of time.
*This* is what causes the medical systems to backup and be overwhelmed.
Yes, that is the problem.
In Britain we are as a policy not testing less severe cases, telling them to self isolate. Neither are we testing people who recover to ensure that they are clear and no longer a risk to others. As such it is hard to report the recovered as other countries have.
Also they are being told to self-isolate only for a week, as far as I'm aware. Is there any evidence that that is long enough? I suspect it's a hangover from the crazy policy of allowing everyone to get it so that we could develop "herd immunity".
The 14 days relates to being infected, getting the disease asymptomatically, having the disease symptomatically and becoming virus free.
If you are at the stage of having symptoms, your are part way through the above - so less time to the point of not shedding virus.
I'm talking about the advice to self-isolate for 7 days if you have symptoms
I checked, and that is still the advice. After 7 days you can stop, unless you still have a temperature. But then you can stop as soon as the temperature goes away. Even while you are self-isolating you can go out to take exercise (?!?). https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/coronavirus-covid-19/self-isolation-advice/
What I'm asking is whether there is any scientific basis for this. Given the gradual rise of the "recovered" percentage in other countries, I am presuming that where people are being tested, it is taking longer than a week for them to test negative. I note that the UK advice is that it's OK to stop self-isolating even if you still have a cough. (And I doubt people need much encouragement to assume from the advice that they aren't infectious any more after 7 days!)
That's the advice I went by. It did seems a bit lax.
The cough associated with this disease can go on for months - long after virus shedding stops.
The question is whether there is scientific evidence for the policy of assuming people stop being infectious a week after symptoms start.
Obviously the point about the cough is not that a cough shows whether they are still infectious, but that if they are still infectious and they have a cough - well, surely you get the idea ...
Of @Stocky’s list I have seen one series of Fargo and the pilot of Breaking Bad. I might catch up with some of the others after I retire.
It's a good list. He missed out:
The West Wing (especially for us lot) Southland Top Boy This Is Us When They See Us 24 (if dated now)
The West Wing is great until the end of the Bartlett campaign, everything after that is just okay.
The Wire is probably the best TV show ever made, even if it does get a bit messy towards the end.
Personally, I'd also recommend DS9, it's a great character drama if you can stand star trek. It's not very much like the rest of them.
Yes the Wire is definitely the best I don't think that is contentious.
Oh and forgot The Americans. Another excellent series.
Yes - the Americans is superbly scripted and acted, and is as much about relationships as about spying. You do have to suspend disbelief as they go about the US killing people, since there isn’t any evidence of the KGB spies and sleepers ever having killed anyone on US soil during the Cold War.
We all project our own tastes! I'd second The Man in the High Castle (Amazon) series 1 and 2, and the Danish dramas The Killing and The Bridge are just as good as nearly everyone said (iplayer, I think) - all three recommended for depth of characters as much as plot. Fleabag was good amoral fun if you're not too shocked by the first 10 minutes.
Two whose names escape me but others will remember (help!) were the US series on a returning American prisoner of Islamic State (has he been brainwashed?) and the one about a woman who falls for a much younger man. The former requires a certain amount of idientification with the CIA as basically good guys, the latter is loved by many (including me) but younger viewers tended to despise it - but the plot in the former is great and the latter is much more subtle than the simple thesis suggests.
I enjoyed The Killing and The Bridge, although I think we do project a little more depth because of the subtitles. They're closer to a slightly trashy ITV primetime series, rather than their BBC4 home suggests.
In The Bridge, there's definitely a very heavy drinking game based around the number of scenes in which Saga gets in or out of her flippin' car.
That isn't true from Fabbers. South Korea and China have both had a lot of asymptomatic positive tests, as has Germany (who have extensively tested contacts of those with symptoms).
What there isn't yet, but probably will be imminently, is an antibody test for those who have had, but no longer have, the virus.
Ok another question...best 1-2 season tv show that got cut too, but was actually really good....
Deadwood. More than two seasons but canned before it finished. Crazy decision.
Deadwood is awesome. The end of the two seasons was a kind of natural end - so it does stand as a sort of complete piece in my view. Great characters, brilliantly acted. And also interesting historical piece about the creation of a town from nothing but dust.
Of @Stocky’s list I have seen one series of Fargo and the pilot of Breaking Bad. I might catch up with some of the others after I retire.
It's a good list. He missed out:
The West Wing (especially for us lot) Southland Top Boy This Is Us When They See Us 24 (if dated now)
The West Wing is great until the end of the Bartlett campaign, everything after that is just okay.
The Wire is probably the best TV show ever made, even if it does get a bit messy towards the end.
Personally, I'd also recommend DS9, it's a great character drama if you can stand star trek. It's not very much like the rest of them.
Yes the Wire is definitely the best I don't think that is contentious.
Oh and forgot The Americans. Another excellent series.
Yes - the Americans is superbly scripted and acted, and is as much about relationships as about spying. You do have to suspend disbelief as they go about the US killing people, since there isn’t any evidence of the KGB spies and sleepers ever having killed anyone on US soil during the Cold War.
Well sure, but that just makes me think of a quote I came across recently from Bernard Cornwell on changing details in a historical novel, which boiled down to 'I changed [events] because fictional heroes must be given suitable employment'.
Also, a lot of the late-night comics in the US are 'working from home', streaming on Youtube their monologues and inviting other comics to join remotely. The politics-free Lights Out With David Spade the the highlight among these.
Does anyone have a clear picture on number of people recovered in the UK. I'm not sure if that stat is being released every day, only the total number infected and number who didn't make it. It is very important data in judging the severity of cases each nation is testing for IMO.
and they are truly staggering. At the moment 88% of the cases concluded in the UK of recorded cases are ending in death. This cannot possibly be right, not even close, but presumably it reflects the relatively long period of the illness for those that have sufficiently serious symptoms to be tested so that the deaths come early and the recoveries later.
This is the problem with the particular disease -
1) It hits a small number very hard. 2) A minority of that number die. 3) But a substantial number of those hit hard need serious medical care over a long period of time.
*This* is what causes the medical systems to backup and be overwhelmed.
Yes, that is the problem.
In Britain we are as a policy not testing less severe cases, telling them to self isolate. Neither are we testing people who recover to ensure that they are clear and no longer a risk to others. As such it is hard to report the recovered as other countries have.
Also they are being told to self-isolate only for a week, as far as I'm aware. Is there any evidence that that is long enough? I suspect it's a hangover from the crazy policy of allowing everyone to get it so that we could develop "herd immunity".
It's a week from developing symptoms? If you still have symptoms after that, common sense suggests you continue to stay away.
Well, that's not the advice. The advice is that it's OK to stop self-isolating after a week even if you have a cough.
But what I'm asking about is whether there is any scientific basis for people no longer being infectious after a week.
In the mild cases, viral shedding dipped steadily after Day 5, and by Day 10, patients likely weren't contagious anymore, the authors noted.
I think these are mild hospitilised cases. I assume ones not requiring medical intervention should be similar.
Thanks. So on the basis of that report, the government is telling people to stop self-isolating three days earlier than the medical advice would indicate - though the advice about releasing people after ten days is conditional on "provided that swab samples from their throat contain fewer than 100,000 copies of viral genetic material per milliliter", which obviously won't be happening.
Essentially I just wonder why they are saying just a week when caution would indicate - say - 14 days. And whether the 7-day advice was formulated when they had the crazy policy of letting most people get it, but slowing down the spread somewhat.
Does anyone have a clear picture on number of people recovered in the UK. I'm not sure if that stat is being released every day, only the total number infected and number who didn't make it. It is very important data in judging the severity of cases each nation is testing for IMO.
and they are truly staggering. At the moment 88% of the cases concluded in the UK of recorded cases are ending in death. This cannot possibly be right, not even close, but presumably it reflects the relatively long period of the illness for those that have sufficiently serious symptoms to be tested so that the deaths come early and the recoveries later.
This is the problem with the particular disease -
1) It hits a small number very hard. 2) A minority of that number die. 3) But a substantial number of those hit hard need serious medical care over a long period of time.
*This* is what causes the medical systems to backup and be overwhelmed.
Yes, that is the problem.
In Britain we are as a policy not testing less severe cases, telling them to self isolate. Neither are we testing people who recover to ensure that they are clear and no longer a risk to others. As such it is hard to report the recovered as other countries have.
Also they are being told to self-isolate only for a week, as far as I'm aware. Is there any evidence that that is long enough? I suspect it's a hangover from the crazy policy of allowing everyone to get it so that we could develop "herd immunity".
It's a week from developing symptoms? If you still have symptoms after that, common sense suggests you continue to stay away.
Well, that's not the advice. The advice is that it's OK to stop self-isolating after a week even if you have a cough.
But what I'm asking about is whether there is any scientific basis for people no longer being infectious after a week.
In the mild cases, viral shedding dipped steadily after Day 5, and by Day 10, patients likely weren't contagious anymore, the authors noted.
I think these are mild hospitilised cases. I assume ones not requiring medical intervention should be similar.
Thanks. So on the basis of that report, the government is telling people to stop self-isolating three days earlier than the medical advice would indicate - though the advice about releasing people after ten days is conditional on "provided that swab samples from their throat contain fewer than 100,000 copies of viral genetic material per milliliter", which obviously won't be happening.
Essentially I just wonder why they are saying just a week when caution would indicate - say - 14 days. And whether the 7-day advice was formulated when they had the crazy policy of letting most people get it, but slowing down the spread somewhat.
Well, this is only one study I managed to find with a quick google search. You hope the government advisors do a bit more than that. From this, seven days sounds reasonable, especially when you combine it with all the social distancing that is going on these days.
Any list of great TV that omits Succession is... Well, not s list of great TV.
You are probably right - I haven`t watched it because I can`t get for free yet (I don`t think). I`ve hear great things about it and really want to watch it.
Yes it's great.
And as for Alistair's I don't watch much TV that is a bit like someone in the seventeenth century saying I don't get down to The Globe much. Or the NT or the Almeida or the Edinburgh Festival today.
Does anyone have a clear picture on number of people recovered in the UK. I'm not sure if that stat is being released every day, only the total number infected and number who didn't make it. It is very important data in judging the severity of cases each nation is testing for IMO.
and they are truly staggering. At the moment 88% of the cases concluded in the UK of recorded cases are ending in death. This cannot possibly be right, not even close, but presumably it reflects the relatively long period of the illness for those that have sufficiently serious symptoms to be tested so that the deaths come early and the recoveries later.
I think the statistics are simply incomplete.
The death rate compared to total cases (of around 1%, probably much lower allowing for mild and asymptomatic unidentified cases) doesn’t look particularly alarming compared to other countries. I suspect the discrepancy is simply the amount of effort put into repeat testing and reporting those who have recovered.
Of @Stocky’s list I have seen one series of Fargo and the pilot of Breaking Bad. I might catch up with some of the others after I retire.
It's a good list. He missed out:
The West Wing (especially for us lot) Southland Top Boy This Is Us When They See Us 24 (if dated now)
The West Wing is great until the end of the Bartlett campaign, everything after that is just okay.
The Wire is probably the best TV show ever made, even if it does get a bit messy towards the end.
Personally, I'd also recommend DS9, it's a great character drama if you can stand star trek. It's not very much like the rest of them.
Yes the Wire is definitely the best I don't think that is contentious.
Oh and forgot The Americans. Another excellent series.
Yes - the Americans is superbly scripted and acted, and is as much about relationships as about spying. You do have to suspend disbelief as they go about the US killing people, since there isn’t any evidence of the KGB spies and sleepers ever having killed anyone on US soil during the Cold War.
Well sure, but that just makes me think of a quote I came across recently from Bernard Cornwell on changing details in a historical novel, which boiled down to 'I changed [events] because fictional heroes must be given suitable employment'.
The Americans wouldn’t have been much of a series if they just photocopied documents and waited for World War Three not to break out, for sure.
Ok another question...best 1-2 season tv show that got cut too, but was actually really good....
Deadwood. More than two seasons but canned before it finished. Crazy decision.
Deadwood is awesome. The end of the two seasons was a kind of natural end - so it does stand as a sort of complete piece in my view. Great characters, brilliantly acted. And also interesting historical piece about the creation of a town from nothing but dust.
It’s sad to see Deadwood finish life as a ‘fake town’, as it seemed when I was there last autumn. But the show is definitely on my list.
Off topic - like @Andy_JS I have watched very little TV over the past few years so have missed out on pretty much all the dramas that people praise.
A girl cannot live on Midsomer Murder repeats alone. I’ve just started on Broadchuch, which is very good - though not exactly cheering.
Now, of course, is the perfect time for all that catching up.
A list of PB’ers Top 10 / 20 dramas / films / documentary series would be much appreciated. I have Netflix and Amazon Prime. Thanks very much.
I have been watching BFIplayer, via their subscription streaming service. £4.95 a month, with a free 2 week trial, and can cancel any time. Some great fare away from the usual Netflix stuff.
I watched Walkabout (1971) yesterday, and what a beautiful and elegiac film it was. Aniara (2019) too, a very thoughtful Sci Fi in Swedish. There are some great French, German and Italian classics too.
I am very tempted by BFI must admit
Not all of it is of equal interest, and some stuff I abandon, but there are some gems. I prefer films centering around character rather than special effects, and appreciate the distillation of ideas found in a film to the bloated ramblings of mini-series.
Their pay per view films are good too.
I dislike films too where violence is seen as the solution rather than the problem. That doesn't mean that films need avoid violence, but too much American mainstream cinema is about killing people to resolve the plot. That famous Christmas movie, for example.
Old films with lots of dialogue and no special effects are my favourite, I might sign up.
Though Aniara had good special effects, and Walkabout famously little dialogue!
Watching Walkabout when I was at school it definitely wasn't the dialogue that made an impression!
I once went out with a dead ringer for Jenny Agutter in her prime. Think American Werewolf in London, nurses uniform period....
He is trying to say that we have an antigen test but not an antibody test, yet. And failing.
But it's the ones with antigens who are contagious not the ones with antibodies. Theoretically if we could test everyone for antigens we could virtually end this pandemic overnight.
Comments
But what I'm asking about is whether there is any scientific basis for people no longer being infectious after a week.
Best to look at a rolling seven day average.
e.g. Italy went 1016, 1266, 1441...then it just went up and up from there, to 300 a day, 400, etc..
A few ex-VPs have also failed to do what Biden looks to have done and get the nomination - e.g. Quayle ran in 2000 but withdrew before the first primaries.
That's simply not true.
Oh and forgot The Americans. Another excellent series.
In the mild cases, viral shedding dipped steadily after Day 5, and by Day 10, patients likely weren't contagious anymore, the authors noted.
I think these are mild hospitilised cases. I assume ones not requiring medical intervention should be similar.
Edit: They do sum through.
Obviously the point about the cough is not that a cough shows whether they are still infectious, but that if they are still infectious and they have a cough - well, surely you get the idea ...
In The Bridge, there's definitely a very heavy drinking game based around the number of scenes in which Saga gets in or out of her flippin' car.
What there isn't yet, but probably will be imminently, is an antibody test for those who have had, but no longer have, the virus.
NEW THREAD
Dave Chapelle, Bill Burr, Trevor Noah, Iliza Schlesenger and Anthony Jeselnik being recent highlights.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_original_stand-up_comedy_specials_distributed_by_Netflix
Also, a lot of the late-night comics in the US are 'working from home', streaming on Youtube their monologues and inviting other comics to join remotely. The politics-free Lights Out With David Spade the the highlight among these.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMi38pytm6Ca2KXc7ftlu_w
Scandinoir. Strong "empowered" female lead. Dense plotting and characterization. Slow burn atmosphere. Political angle. Many twists. The music.
It's been remade as Spiral, The Bridge, loads more - but it was the first and best.
Essentially I just wonder why they are saying just a week when caution would indicate - say - 14 days. And whether the 7-day advice was formulated when they had the crazy policy of letting most people get it, but slowing down the spread somewhat.
Spiral is excellent - it wasn`t a remake of The killing though. Spiral was made long before The Killing.
And as for Alistair's I don't watch much TV that is a bit like someone in the seventeenth century saying I don't get down to The Globe much. Or the NT or the Almeida or the Edinburgh Festival today.
You are right about Spiral. It was made first. So I take that back.
Utopia (2 seasons) Maybe on Channel 4 catchup?
Carnivale (2 seasons)