File 136289106555.jpg - (1.45MB , 1680x1050 , 1277876931898.jpg )

it wont be needed, America has so many gun crazy nuts that the first hour of the zombie apocalypse would see the end of all zombies,headshots are not actualy that hard,few of the infected would get past that hour and by the end of the first day, its over, back to normal guys, grow the fuck up.

>>4432
Dude, all those 'gun crazy nuts' are just going to be fodder for the Zombies.

Really, all you do is stay somewhere safe for what two weeks? Then decomposition has fucked all the Zombies for you.

>>4433
Unlikely. The thing is with "zombie apocalypse" scenarios, a huge swarm of zombies somehow always appears from nowhere, despite them (by their very nature) being ridiculously easy to fend off on their own.

If a bunch of people (read, all the dead) turn into zombies, the problem would soon sort itself out. People around the world would know about the outbreak within minutes, as people on twitter, facebook, youtube and the news networks would broadcast information about what everyone would immediately recognise as zombies. Before the zombies even have had chance to start inflicting kills, people would be out in arms, ready to massacre them.

Meanwhile, the zombies in the morgues will have trouble doing anything, being that they are locked in cabinets or hospital rooms. Security will deal with them in good time.

All zombie stories contain the contradiction that whilst the main characters have little trouble killing, avoiding and outsmarting the zombies, the rest of society somehow collapsed, being utterly incapable of handling the World's least threatening disaster.

Ironically, despite being a silly spoof, Shawn of the Dead is probably the most realistic account of how a zombie plague would turn out; the plague gets wiped out within a single day.

>>4434
Posted on this topic before, but feeling lazy to type the whole thing out again, but basically the root of the problem won't be zombies in first world nations: third world countries, which have shit communications, will get overrun by zombies, refugees will flood to first world countries, urban population will explode with these refugees, which in turn will cause a decline in living condition (crime, disease, etc.), and episodic zombie breakouts will eventually wear on public morale and faith in the government.

Then you'll have riots, hate crimes, and other activities that contribute to violent death and improper disposal of corpses; more zombie outbreaks, mass hysteria, society implodes upon itself as people "circle the wagon" to try to protect their own communities from whatever is causing the outbreaks, further outbreaks go unreported due to the breakdown in communications, etc. etc.

It wouldn't be a fast thing, it will take years, maybe even decades, and would be more of a siege on sanity rather than immediate physical danger.

Oh, just to clarify, all the episodic breakouts would be put down quickly, but the psychological damage will still be there.

This is actually a good topic to discuss. Part of my personal zombie fantasy is the whole problem of how it starts. Especially when we see main characters taking out zoms with simple melee weapons like hammers and knives. It begs the question, if they can be taken down that easily, how is ANYONE actually turned? I think one method that a lot of zom fiction tries to explore is an alternate history, where zombie culture does not exist yet, and people don't actually know what they are dealing with. People are always like "people... dead people... are coming back alive! OMGOMGOMG!" Like it is something never before conceived, "frank this isn't you, snap out of it, snap out of it, AAAH why are you biting me?" In reality, the entirety of the public has experienced zombie fiction, so within a short amount of time, they would recognize "this is a zombie, it's not a person anymore, we shoot them in the head, this is how they move, this is how to avoid them, ect." People would be like "Hey bob?" "yeah?" "there's zombies." "shoot them in the head?" "yup, just like that."

The only way I could see an apocalyptic zombie scenario actually starting would be if somehow a large fraction of the population got turned simultaneously WITHOUT getting bit, or having to experience transmission the normal way we think about it. The way I conceive this as a possibility is if the virus gets taken down easily by normally functioning immune systems, but can take over a person who's immune system is compromised. This means people who are currently very sick with a certain virus, people who are suffering from AIDS, children and the elderly, and maybe people in colder environments. All these demographics would get a few traces of the virus just from the air, but normal, fully grown, healthy individuals would be able to fend it off.

>>4435
I imagine 3rd world countries wouldn't have much of a problem either. They fight wars too, and have their own militias and armed forces. They'd benefit from the help of first world nations too (who'll have dealt with their zombie problem even quicker).

Though we're supposed to be dealing with a plague, we're basically dealing with an incredibly slow, incredibly inefficient process that depends entirely on slow moving, easily avoidable, easy to kill human hosts who can only transmit the disease by blood. Essentially, every other disease in the real world is more efficient than this.

>>4442
Having a standing military is only one aspect of dealing with a biological disaster and that's not even taking into consideration the quality of the military in question.

You need good civilian communication infrastructure so the military can be alerted to outbreaks and the rest of the civilian population can learn why the military is shooting up apparently unarmed people. You also need to be able to communicate to your civilian about the nature of the infection, proper handling and disposal of remains (which might violate traditions and/or religious norms), and who to contact in case of outbreaks. Without that (and even with), you face the possibility of civil war erupting because military action can be interpreted as ethnic cleansing and desecration of bodies (not everyone will be aware of zombies since we're assuming here it can only spread through direct contact). which will cripple containment efforts.

You also need good communication so the third world government knows exactly how bad the situation is. They're not going to allow foreign military units to come help if they think they have the situation under control, especially when the infection is as slow-spreading and inefficient as being assumed here.

That being said, this is just based on the assumption that the infection's vector is only through direct contact (and an extremely short incubation period), which is pretty much the best case scenario. If it's airborne and the incubation period is until the infected dies (like in Walking Dead), then even first world countries will have problems containing it, much less divert resources to help third world countries.

>>4438
Here's a fun spin on things: not all viruses are actually harmful. For example we have bacteriophage, which are viruses that don't attack human cells, but like to host in the cells of certain bacteria: have a bacterial infection? Bacteriophage to the rescue. Or consider that smallpox vaccines started by using the cowpox virus to trigger an immune response without causing as much damage as smallpox.

So, if there was a zombie virus it doesn't necessarily have to be a "bad" virus: upon initial infection it doesn't harm the host, but instead can improve bodily functions (thereby extending the host's lifetime and allowing the virus to continue reproducing). The catch would be that upon the host's death the virus goes into overdrive trying to prevent cell death, which leads to a "living" zombie and explains why a bite would also trigger zombification.

File 136327692179.png - (138.21KB , 846x1500 , barbarian.png )

>>4444
I like it. Very walking Dead, plus that added boost that some/all people would get. It could justify the occasional superhuman/anime-level badass wandering around or setting up a wasteland community.

>>4438
>The way I conceive this as a possibility is if the virus gets taken down easily by normally functioning immune systems, but can take over a person who's immune system is compromised. This means people who are currently very sick with a certain virus, people who are suffering from AIDS, children and the elderly, and maybe people in colder environments.

I like this idea too. Its a more realistic approach in terms of our current comprehension/expectation of diseases and infections. It would cause a more sporadic rate of violent outbreaks with random folks succumbing to the virus and turning before the symptoms can be properly identified. However, since it is hinged on normal immune system resistances, we could possibly develop a vaccine before total apocalypse, or at least start regimes to bolster the populations I.S. and identify/quarantine high-risk patient threats.

File 13632786392.jpg - (94.10KB , 300x250 , zombies1_300x250.jpg )

>>4438
>I think one method that a lot of zom fiction tries to explore is an alternate history, where zombie culture does not exist yet, and people don't actually know what they are dealing with.

In the good ole days (and arguably still), what made zombies the scariest horror creature wasn't their physical prowess or supernatural qualities. It was the fact that these were your LOVED ONES trying to eat you. Grandma is dragging herself across the floor trying to gnaw on your leg as your neighbors pound on the walls thirsty for blood. It will undoubtedly be much more difficult to put down our near and dear than we may think, even now with the mainstream influx of zombie media attention that desensitizes its viewers in preparation for the seemingly unavoidable and impending zombie apocalypse. Of whatever percentage of society that is 'zombie-ready', AND standing ready to meet the threat toe-to-toe on zero hour, I bet at least a third of these so-called frontliner badasses will fall prey to their emotional attachments and get turned by a loved one.

File 136332880420.jpg - (24.55KB , 380x448 , 132243772319.jpg )

All this discussion about the nature of the outbreak and the pathology of the plague/virus is really got my gears moving. Especially when you factor in public response based on modern familiarity with the zombie concept, as well as various other sociological trends. It probably deserves it's own thread.

>>4445
Well, I wouldn't go as far as say superhuman abilities, but an increased resistance to diseases and infections would help push the more tedious details like minor illnesses from bogging down the fantasy.

Main reason I went with the "beneficial virus" idea is because that maximizes the chance of the virus spreading while minimizing the probability of detection: nobody visits doctors because they suddenly feel better, and extending the lifetime of the host delays the whole "something is turning dead people into zombies" discovery process.

>>4444
>The catch would be that upon the host's death the virus goes into overdrive trying to prevent cell death, which leads to a "living" zombie and explains why a bite would also trigger zombification.
Except...
Viruses don't work like that.

They are passive organic constructs containing incomplete genetic coding that requires a 'host' cell to complete. This finished code has two directives; clone code, create more viruses.

The cell will replicate the virus continually till the cell is breached by the amount of new viruses and dies. In it's place is an army of new viruses.

And that's it.

And that's WHY I hate it when people always use a virus, Bacteria and other infectious agents would work better. Brain Worms, for fucks sake.
A Virus is just the wrong form of medium here.
They Simply Don't Work That Way!

>>4459
I'm not sure if you're aware but its now accepted that 'zombie virus' encompasses parasitic, bacterial, viral and several other options both biological and other that cause the final symptoms characterised by homo-necrosis.

That said, there is no solid argument for why a virus can't be the basis of a zombie outbreak. True, there's much better options and it would break away from the standard model of viral behaviour but we're dealing with something that brings the (virtually) dead back to life, the standard models have already gone out the the window. It would 'help' fuel the scenario if 90% of what we know is rendered useless when trying to deal with it on a biological level.

>>4459
True, I didn't really go into greater detail because, honestly, I'm too lazy to put that kind of effort into a fantasy (unless it's porn), but the process I'm describing isn't completely beyond the realm of possibility.

Cancer has a strange quality where the primary tumor releases cells into the blood stream and forms secondary sites, these are generally benign and otherwise undetectable, but when the primary tumor is removed it triggers a chemical marker that activates the secondary sites. Hence why we use chemotherapy before and after surgery: eliminate those secondary sites before they turn into another tumor (and hopefully before killing he patient).

So, no, a virus can't go berserk, but that doesn't preclude the possibility that altered cells could have a similar function: upon the host's death the cells begin to go into the aforementioned "overdrive", whatever this mechanism entails it restores enough bodily functions to "reanimate" a corpse, and the byproduct of this overdrive is a chemical marker that will cause benign altered cells to also go into an overdrive state.

This can conveniently explain why the viral infection can have standard vectors while the "zombification" is only upon death or fluid transfer.

Of course, this only brings up even more holes that need justification regarding cell metabolism, the nervous system, higher brain functions, etc... but that would be way too much tl;dr for a lot of crap that wouldn't pan out anyway.

File 136362332732.png - (279.40KB , 640x576 , NK_CancerKillers.png )

>>4459
>And that's WHY I hate it when people always use a virus, Bacteria and other infectious agents would work better. Brain Worms, for fucks sake.
I see what this guy is saying, seems like a valid point but...
>>4460
> its now accepted that 'zombie virus' encompasses parasitic, bacterial, viral and several other options both biological and other that cause the final symptoms
...I agree with this too. We really have no idea what we will be working with in the beginning. It could be as straight forward as Rabies (albeit an accelerated version), or as complex as symbiotic alien brain worms that rode in on a comet. We really have to work backwards with what we can expect and plan for all possible contingencies.
>>4466
>Cancer has a strange quality where the primary tumor releases cells into the blood stream and forms secondary sites...
Yea or it could be crazy cancer. Maybe the primary site mutates the brain and the secondary sites help make the whole thing move. They might work their way into the limbs which would otherwise be too rotten or damaged to function.

>>4466
As a bio major this primary secondary signalling stuff does sound like bullshit to me.

>>4444
Toxoplasmosis is carried by a third of the world. would that be enough?

>>4431

zombification as a way to prolong life for people with terminal diseases as they remain functioning for longer before actual death

symptoms may include....
etc etc etc, umbrella corporation profiteers off it like a regular pharmaceutical company :>

>>4466
Cancer has a strange quality where the primary tumor releases cells into the blood stream and forms secondary sites,
>these are generally benign and otherwise undetectable, but when the primary tumor is removed it triggers a chemical marker that activates the secondary sites. Hence why we use chemotherapy before and after surgery: eliminate those secondary sites before they turn into another tumor (and hopefully before killing he patient).

The highlighted portion is not how metastases works, and 'chemical markers' is not the reason for therapies being used following surgery. A benign tumor does not infiltrate other tissues, only grows in place sometimes putting physical pressure on surrounding organs and blocking ducts or whatever.
A malignancy infiltrates other tissues, and portions break away (embolise) into the bloodstream or lymph vessels and spread throughout the body. This is the reason why lymph nodes closest to tumor sites are biopsied: they are like strainers and cancer cells will stick there if they've made their way inside a vessel. Before a primary tumor is noticed the metasteses may have spread significantly, but is still undetectable. Depending on cancer type they can continue to grow slowly until someone who was in remission has a recurrence with the secondary sites growing and causing new problems.
Cancer cells are not intelligent, and do not communicate with each other. They're cells that can't self-destruct due to damage to that portion of their DNA.