Feasibility of Zombie Holocaust

[EvilNed]

Okay, so around 20% of the zombies are going to be restrained before they bite more than one person. I can agree on that. Now we still have loads of other deadies being unaccounted for. Including the nurses and doctors that were killed and will now go home and die rather than staying at the hospital and helping to keep the hundreds and hundreds of infected victims to keep calm. See where I'm going here? The Doctors restraining skills aside, the hospitals are still quickly going to crumble. They will flood with the dead in one out of two situations: 1) Early in the initial outbreak, when nobody really understands whats going on. Or: 2) A day or two later, when so many injured people have turned up due to some hospitals being knocked out and many people being wounded. This is a hotbed for zombiemunching.

[Publius]

Including the nurses and doctors that were killed and will now go home and die rather than staying at the hospital and helping to keep the hundreds and hundreds of infected victims to keep calm. Do you think they're going to LET them go home? I doubt it. I think after a few minutes examining the restrained zombie, everyone who had been bitten or scratched or drooled on will be held for observation. Possibly everyone who had been in the ROOM. But at a minimum anyone with severe bites. The possibility that some kind of extremely dangerous infectious disease is present is just too obvious. And even if they aren't held, a nurse or doctor who goes home is going to realize that he or she has picked up some kind of nasty infection long before dying and reanimating, and check back with the hospital to find out how they concerned they should be about it. Assuming the hospital doesn't get concerned first and call them back in.

[Wyldwraith]

Only 1 in 5 zombie will end up restrained without biting more than 2 people? How could a hospital that has to say, treat/keep still, and prevent the rival gangbangers they're treating at the same time for knife and gunshot wounds from killing each other in the hospital supposed to even function if they CAN'T efficiently restrain patients? There are mass-casualty protocols, part of which is ensuring they have a higher than usual # of police on hand during the crisis. (Almost all hospitals, just like schools in the SE US at least have a couple of Sheriff's Deputies in each Middle and High School, and 6-8 per County Hospital.) That's on a regular day. A mass casualty crisis will probably merit 2 more cars at the hospital. So 2-4 more Deputies. Off-duty medical personnel also get called in/beeped/voicemailed to come in when a mass-casualty situation begins. Given that numerically the average hospital will begin with 2-3 zombies, which may or may not be too young, too old, or too structurally damaged due to the trauma which killed them, it's quite likely that a significant % of hospitals will make it through their initial contact with the phenomena relatively unscathed. Someone mentioned that approximately 8,000 people die per day in the US, and that there are approximately 6,000 County Hospitals. Doesn't it then become relevant to determine how many of the 8,000 are intact enough to reanimate, and how many are too young to be ANY threat, and how many to pose only a limited threat? It would be THAT fraction of the 8,000 dead/day and how they are dispersed among the 6,000 Hospitals which would have much to do with how the Hospitals fare. Florida for example would have more than its fair share of skeletally wasted recently deceased senior citizens. On the flip side, an area with a higher than average density of individuals 18-40 would be in the most jeopardy IMHO. Ultimately its all theory and speculation (Thank God), so reasoning it out is the best any of us can do.

[Publius]

Someone mentioned that approximately 8,000 people die per day in the US, and that there are approximately 6,000 County Hospitals. Doesn't it then become relevant to determine how many of the 8,000 are intact enough to reanimate, and how many are too young to be ANY threat, and how many to pose only a limited threat? That was me. 8,000 per day was a rough estimate based on a figure I had for "1 death every 11 seconds." On further review, it looks like that's too high. The CDC's National Center for Health Statistics says that there were 2,426,264 deaths in 2006. The population of the U.S. is about 3.3% higher now than in 2006, so if we adjust the 2006 death total accordingly and divide by the number of days in a year, it comes to approximately 6,867 deaths per day. Of those 6,867, about 94 will be 4 years old or younger (mostly under 1 year). Another 18 will be 5 to 14 years old. 220 will be between 15 and 34 years old. 759 will be 35-54 years old. 797 will be 55-64 years old. 1,104 will be 65-74 years old. 1,888 will be 75-84 years old. And 1,987 will be 85 years old or older. Now, some major causes of death: Cancer accounts for 23%, cardiovascular disease for 34%, and respiratory diseases for 8%. Accidents kill 333 per day, including 124 in motor vehicle accidents. Suicide kills 91 per day (46 by firearm), and homicide accounts for 51 per day. Accidents, homicide, and suicide are the leading causes of death for the 15-34 year olds. Accidents are still the leading cause of death in the 35-44 group but a few diseases are close. Beyond that it's overwhelmingly disease. You can find tables with lots of other details from the Census Bureau here. ---------- Post added at 04:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:27 PM ---------- I should note that on the other side of the coin, it looks like the U.S. autopsy rate is much lower than I originally thought. I found a cited rate of 26% in the U.S. before, but it turns out that that was based on a study of Houston hospitals. Nationwide, the rate is only about 5% (down tenfold over the past 50-60 years), but varies widely by region. It's worth noting, however, that young and apparently healthy bodies are much more likely than average to be autopsied.