They're slow and don't even have weapons. - eviltoast
  • Kyyrypyy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    To be fair, we still have a covid pandemic going on because people are not smart enough to do the smart thins. They will hide their ingections, the infection screenings will be done by incpmpetent people, the rich and dumb elite will preserve zombies as “exotic pets” they show off to their friend because “they have money, so rules don’t apply to them”, and sentimental idiots won’t let go of their turned loved ones. Not to mention the otherwise entitled people who just blatantly disregard every precaution because “You can’t limit my freedom with this hoax”.

    But yeah, in ideal world, the zombie outbreak would be dealt swiftly.

    • merc@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, but that’s because COVID isn’t 100% fatal, whereas zombie bites are 100% fatal.

      It doesn’t necessarily mean that people would be more cautious of a Zombie outbreak, it just means that the dumb ones would be awarded Darwins much more swiftly, leaving only the more cautious ones behind.

      • ganove@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The incubation time is key. Imagine, we are already carrying the virus, babies are infected in the womb or through a funghi. Some show symptoms immediately, some later, some never.

        • Kyyrypyy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          Add to that a possibility of asymptomous infection. Not only that, but assuming this would be a parasitic or viral infection, them killing the host, especially before spreading, would not be beneficial for survival, so the infection would probably become nonleathal to majority, because the surviving strands would be the ones that stay hidden the longest.

          In addition, if “the efficient erradication” missed a one zombie, what guaranties are there that it was JUST one zombie? Could you trust someone who has been in contact witha a zombie, but claims not being infected? Have you been in contact with a zombie recently, mayhaps? Are you sure you haven’t been?

          • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            asymptomous infection.

            I think I might have gotten it at one point. Every single time I had a sniffle I got tested and never once showed positive. Coworkers, members of my household, friends, my wife. Everyone around me got it at least once but apparently not me. So, I am either very lucky (bad bet) or somehow I got it with no symptoms.

        • merc@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          True, but in the Zombie fiction I’ve come across the incubation time is extremely short. That makes it more dramatic and scary in one sense, but would make the outbreak much easier to control. In particular, if you can spread it without knowing you’re infected, the world is in real trouble.

          That’s another thing that makes typical Zombies so easy to control. The only “people” who can spread it are dead. You can safely care for someone until the moment they die. As long as you can avoid getting bitten once they’re dead, you’re safe. Real diseases are so much more dangerous because doctors and nurses have to weigh the risk of getting infected against the desire to help the patient.

          I’d love to see a Zombie story involving a bored nurse who follows standard safety procedures and straps a standard Hannibal Lecter style mask on any possibly terminally ill patient.