Zombie strength levels

[Wyldwraith]

Yes, BUT: Karen Cooper was a reasonably large child at 7-9yrs old, and completely ambulatory, PLUS in the tiny minority of weapon-using zombies. Much like the undead children Peter encounters at the airfield in Dawn, their small size and relatively quick (for a zombie) movements actually make them MORE dangerous than many adult zombies. That's without even touching on the emotionally-difficult-to-terminate issue many would experience when confronted by undead children. The gist of my argument remains the same however. 9 out of 10 people can be useless zombie buffets, and the zombies still wouldn't reach epidemic numbers at all quickly if the 10% of individuals with the guts, will and ability to act come into play. Ie: It doesn't matter if 9 people literally lay down and offer their throats to the zombies if the 10th guy in this 9 out of 10 example habitually terminates 10 or more ghouls before himself being killed. Plus, I call your attention to the fact that Bitten By Zombie/Infected DOES NOT = Instantly unable to continue fighting. In FACT, one could argue that a minor zombie bite might make the individual in question an even more effective combatant during the time he/she has left, because he/she need no longer fear being infected, and only needs to avoid being dragged down and painfully dismembered. How many zombies can an infected ex-cop with nothing to lose bring down before he sickens enough to feel the need to kill himself to prevent reanimation? If it's more than 10 total, the 90% Useless Sheep argument just went out the window, because the other 10% are cleaning up the mess. At least until ammo runs low. Simply a numbers game. Look at that Infection simulation we all toyed with awhile back. If you set the Armed Civilians percentage to 10-15% and gave them 20% accuracy, and set the police population to the minimum or one notch above minimum and gave them 30% accuracy or more (which I would argue is quite low for many police officers), zombie numbers went DOWN.

[Trin]

One, I'm not afraid of a little girl with a trowel who was able to kill her mop of a mom and already shot dad, and two, as Wyld says any 7-9 year old reduced to zombie intellect is far more dangerous than a 79 year old. Zombies are just gonna do what they did in life. If that's geriatric zombies then that means worrying about bowel movements. And since they never have them, it's gonna take literally ALL their time. Instead of fireworks they could turn on Matlock. "Zombies can't take their eyes off him."

[Publius]

I think it's more accepting what's happening and what has to be done to stop it, especially when it's in direct conflict with one's religious and moral views. The subject was brought up in dawn as well as survival. I wonder about this. I know Dawn and Survival addressed the issue, but I think Romero was out of his depth here. This bit from The Onion's review of The Last Exorcism reminded me of Romero's depiction of religious people: "Aided by strong performances from Bell [playing the possessed girl] and Fabian [playing the preacher who tried to exorcise her], [director Daniel] Stamm deftly plays with the boundary of fact and fiction, though his game might have worked better with a little more grounding in verisimilitude. Fabian's brand of fundamentalism feels cobbled together from an outsider's perspective of how evangelicals think. . . ." Does anyone here think their religious beliefs would prevent them from reacting appropriately to zombies? I'm what some of you would call a "fundamentalist Christian" (though I'd prefer the term "evangelical"), but I'm not aware of any "thou shalt not resist the zombies trying to kill you and your family" commandment in the Bible. I don't think many of the, shall we say, less rigorous varieties of Protestantism are likely to have more difficulty with zombies. Catholics? They came up with "just war" theory and an intricate demonology, so I don't think they'll have a problem on the whole (aside from those crazy old priests and nuns who used to chain themselves to the gates of military bases etc). So whose religious beliefs command the kind of passive resistance that would make them incapable of reacting to zombies? In the US, the Quakers and a handful of New Agers and Zen Buddhists? On the whole, I think the problem is often exaggerated. ---------- Post added at 04:18 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:10 AM ---------- They will hide, just as they do now, until DIRECTLY attacked. As in, ghouls breaking through their windows. And at that point, it's too late. Much too late. Dinner time. Is it? Too late for organized resistance, maybe. But if the family owns guns, even if they take the ostrich approach, ghouls breaking through their windows means "target practice" before it means "dinner time." If the outbreak has just started, the threat can be eliminated quickly. If it's been building for a while (so the number attacking exceeds available ammunition times accuracy percentage), the family is likely to be overwhelmed, but still stands a good chance of making the attack a net loss for the zombies (more zombies killed than "recruited"). In the meantime, the efficient minority described by Wyldwraith is doing the real mopping up. It's another application of the Pareto principle: 20% of the people do 80% of the work. Although zombies are more homogenous than humans, so the ratio will probably be even more lopsided.

[Wyldwraith]

Excellent post Publius, Agree completely with your dismissal of religious conviction as possible cause for non-resistance versus zombies (or anyone attempting to harm the believer or his family/loved one). On a personal note, would like to say hello to a fellow believer, though I consider myself non-denominational and stick to small-scale study and focusing on my personal relationship with God and Savior Jesus. Also, I would further elaborate that during the period when zombie numbers are too low for them to "horde up", but high enough they're readily visible to anyone who looks, anyone with REAL proficiency with a semi-automatic firearm won't have much trouble picking off their targets. The biggest factor that convinces me the above statement is true is that not only do zombies fail to take evasion action when threatened, their movements are linear and predictable IN THE EXTREME. Example: I'm 30 feet from the nearest zombies, an adult male with a messed up foot/ankle that causes a structurally-based limp. I look around in a full 360 degrees and find no other zombies closer than the target-zombie, now 27-25 feet away. I watch my target for 2-4 seconds, getting a feel for the pattern of his repetitive-movement sequence, by which time the zombie has closed to 20-18 feet from me. I know what the entire movement sequence the zombies will perform is now, and can estimate with a high-degree of precision where his head is going to be in the next couple of seconds. Even saying I miss the first shot, I have ample time to correct my aim and fire again. So long as my nerve doesn't fail me, or a live human doesn't unexpectedly attack me from a hidden vantage, I see no logical reason I cannot eliminate the zombie well before it breaches my 10-foot safety buffer-distance. Extrapolating, this easily explains how, if I am among those that don't freeze up when confronting a zombie (or zombies), I can easily eliminate 10+ at a bare minimum before being killed or infected and then dead by my own hand. Finally, going beyond the "Effective 10% doing the work of/for the useless 90% theory", 10-15% of the original 10% of the total population (which would make them about 1-1.5% of the total population), will likely find themselves in an "Andy situation" ala Dawn '04. Meaning, this small fraction of individuals will find themselves with access to a safe vantage point well off the ground, and a much larger-than average supply of ammunition for their chosen weapon(s). While few when compared to the total population, individuals in such a position face no obstacle stopping them from terminating hundreds of ghouls or all that they can draw a bead on from their vantage-point, whichever comes first. This factor alone could prevent a large neighborhood from being overrun. With a courageous man or woman working in tandem with them down on the ground, literally every zombie in the area could be baited within range of the "sniper" by using the "runner" on the ground to lure them into easy range. Thoughts on how such individuals could affect the overall process of a zombie infestation in its early stages?

[Publius]

While few when compared to the total population, individuals in such a position face no obstacle stopping them from terminating hundreds of ghouls or all that they can draw a bead on from their vantage-point, whichever comes first. This factor alone could prevent a large neighborhood from being overrun. With a courageous man or woman working in tandem with them down on the ground, literally every zombie in the area could be baited within range of the "sniper" by using the "runner" on the ground to lure them into easy range. Thoughts on how such individuals could affect the overall process of a zombie infestation in its early stages? That could easily keep whole neighborhoods or small towns free of infections with just a handful of alert, responsible people. While most people "go to ground," hiding in their homes, the most capable few will draw all the attention of the few early zombies and easily dispose of them.

[darth los]

Does anyone here think their religious beliefs would prevent them from reacting appropriately to zombies? I'm what some of you would call a "fundamentalist Christian" (though I'd prefer the term "evangelical"), but I'm not aware of any "thou shalt not resist the zombies trying to kill you and your family" commandment in the Bible. I don't think many of the, shall we say, less rigorous varieties of Protestantism are likely to have more difficulty with zombies. Catholics? They came up with "just war" theory and an intricate demonology, so I don't think they'll have a problem on the whole (aside from those crazy old priests and nuns who used to chain themselves to the gates of military bases etc). So whose religious beliefs command the kind of passive resistance that would make them incapable of reacting to zombies? In the US, the Quakers and a handful of New Agers and Zen Buddhists? On the whole, I think the problem is often exaggerated.[COLOR="Silver"] But that's the problem. As we have seen in the various films , most recently survival, many don't view them as zombies but as family who have a sickness. Not as a threat that must be exterminated but as family they must help no matter what. That's what family is all about after all. When that's the case one can easily see how that can happen.

[Trin]

To a certain extent I agree with you darth. At some point I don't think that people in general are going to continue to fall prey to their former loved ones. I think that point comes quickly. I see a scenario where the government intercedes and views the problem from a sickness containment perspective. In that scenario the population becomes segregated into sick vs. well and the individual choice to harbor the sick lumps you in with them. The healthy get ushered out of the hot zones and the rest are considered lost. The national guard assures containment of the sick and those who won't leave them. If this happens quickly enough you end up with small camps of quarantined sick & dead.

[darth los]

To a certain extent I agree with you darth. At some point I don't think that people in general are going to continue to fall prey to their former loved ones. I think that point comes quickly. I see a scenario where the government intercedes and views the problem from a sickness containment perspective. In that scenario the population becomes segregated into sick vs. well and the individual choice to harbor the sick lumps you in with them. The healthy get ushered out of the hot zones and the rest are considered lost. The national guard assures containment of the sick and those who won't leave them. If this happens quickly enough you end up with small camps of quarantined sick & dead. Quickly is a relative term. When dawn began it was 3 weeks into the outbreak and that was still a major issue as we saw when they raided the apartments and from everything we heard on the t.v. broadcast. And you would figure it went on a little longer than that. Is a month the point of no return?

[Trin]

Quickly is a relative term. When dawn began it was 3 weeks into the outbreak and that was still a major issue as we saw when they raided the apartments and from everything we heard on the t.v. broadcast. And you would figure it went on a little longer than that. Is a month the point of no return? Personally, I file this under the genius of Dawn '78 storytelling. GAR did an amazing job of selling us the fall of civilization. Would that level of disorganization and ignorance still be the driving force 3 weeks into it? Dawn paints a picture that makes you believe that it would be even if common sense evaluation tells you that maybe it wouldn't. I have difficulty believing that it would *really* go that way. I think if you really want to sell the zombie apocalypse getting out of hand you have to base it on the crisis leading to an explosion of crime that then leads to police being overwhelmed and a sharp rise in injury/fatality. Couple that with a delayed or incompetent response from the government and you could put together a nice plausible scenario.

[Doc]

Would that level of disorganization and ignorance still be the driving force 3 weeks into it? Wait, wasn't the '3 weeks' comment direct to Mr. Berman for the lack of cooperating with Dr. Foster on how too dispose of the dead? I always figured the '3 weeks' comment was how long they were at it. Since, Foster says "You have not listen! You have not listen for the last 3 weeks!" or something around those lines.

[Publius]

But that's the problem. As we have seen in the various films , most recently survival, many don't view them as zombies but as family who have a sickness. Not as a threat that must be exterminated but as family they must help no matter what. That's what family is all about after all. That'll be true in many cases, but the vast majority of first encounters will be with strangers, not family members. So most people will have to get over the "maybe they're just sick" issue before it has a familiar (in a literal sense) face. What Trin says is also true -- if things get bad, most of the overly-sympathetic people will likely find themselves on the bad side of a quarantine. I also agree with Trin that the point of no return will come, if ever, more quickly than 3 weeks. Probably within the first week, in my opinion.