Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Current awareness - would it reduce mass panic and fear?

  • 14-06-2013 6:09am
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,824 ✭✭✭


    Would are current awareness of zombie's be a considerable influence over our reactions if it were to happen?

    I mean, there are so many zombie movies, games etc available, the majority of humans alive at present have had some knowledge of them.

    So, do you think that there would still be mass panic and fear when it happens, or do you think everyone would be as cool as cucumbers, go to the nearest sports shop and grab a hurley with a smile on their face?

    Or do you think mass panic would still set in regardless of anything as everyone's loved ones are devoured by your neighbors.


Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,789 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    Or do you think mass panic would still set in regardless of anything as everyone's loved ones are devoured by your neighbors.
    Mass panic is the default state for scared people. Once the selves start to go a bit bare at the shops people will go cracked. Mobs will form spreading the disease further. People don't trust the government enough to listen to what they say, you'll have people that will go looting at the slightest provocation. It won't be bad people either, we saw that in London supposedly good people got caught up in the mayhem. Imagine if you're a parent running low on food and you see people breaking into shops for the last bits of food. You'll join in.

    If the government did decide to start killing zombies you'd have protests from family and rights groups.

    I honestly don't think the zombies will be the real danger, the real danger is the breakdown of our global economy. If we're not trading everything stops.


  • Registered Users Posts: 783 ✭✭✭Kromdar


    wasnt it mentioned [possibly by scumlord] that the new currency would be cigarettes and toilet paper.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,442 ✭✭✭Sulla Felix


    If anything it'll make it worse. People will have a preconceived idea of what they're dealing with, so rather than reacting to whats actually happening they'll be reacting to what they think is happening.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,789 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    If anything it'll make it worse. People will have a preconceived idea of what they're dealing with, so rather than reacting to whats actually happening they'll be reacting to what they think is happening.
    Agreed, I think the disease would have to much more infective than movies let on. By that I mean any fluids coming off a zombie would be infectious just like many viruses. I don't think it would really be feasible for the disease to be restricted to saliva.

    This means the people who think they're heroes and go out taking the heads off zombies would more than likely become infected even if they're not bitten.

    People like to heard in dangerous situations too, which has obvious disadvantages when combating a disease.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,442 ✭✭✭Sulla Felix


    ScumLord wrote: »
    Agreed, I think the disease would have to much more infective than movies let on. By that I mean any fluids coming off a zombie would be infectious just like many viruses. I don't think it would really be feasible for the disease to be restricted to saliva.

    This means the people who think they're heroes and go out taking the heads off zombies would more than likely become infected even if they're not bitten.

    People like to heard in dangerous situations too, which has obvious disadvantages when combating a disease.
    Yep, always thought that made sense. At least some of the fiction sees it that way too.
    The first twenty eight days had a scene where someone gets infected by a drop of blood in the eye.
    And WWZ, there's several cases of people getting infected from blood products.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,789 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    Yep, always thought that made sense. At least some of the fiction sees it that way too.
    The first twenty eight days had a scene where someone gets infected by a drop of blood in the eye.
    And WWZ, there's several cases of people getting infected from blood products.
    The only problem with 28 days is it's just too fast. Most infection rates are way too fast in films but 28 days takes it to the extreme (like everything in the film). It takes at least 3 days for a virus to take hold in the real world. If you think about it anything less than 3 days would also make the virus almost impossible to spread. Everyone would get too sick, too quickly to travel and spread the disease. It would effectively contain itself if it turned people in less than a few hours which is effectively what happens in 28 days.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,069 ✭✭✭Tzar Chasm


    the main thing I see happening would be the recognition of despair, most movies in the genre have a period of optimism at the beginning where people believe order will be restored, if the majority recognize the situation for what it is there will be a hell of a lot of suicides early on, followed by a dispersal to stockades by anyone else


Advertisement