The Zombie Group! discussion

So we all have our "favorite" kind of zombie or the way we all think "real" zombies would work. But how deadly could those presumptions prove to be?

If a real life outbreak happened tomorrow how many of us would be working on assumptions of one kind or another of how the zombies would function? How many of us would actually be able to stop and look for information on how they function before making assumptions?

Ok, I thought about this and my immediate reaction is to say that of members of this group, we'd all "know". I then realized that this is the problem! Unfortunately, my immediate reaction to anything is "zombies"...hehehe, kidding. I shall ponder this more.

How many of us that are sure zombies aren't runners could be over taken by a zombie that we assumed couldn't go faster than a shamble? Or what if head shots didn't kill them? How many people would waist time and bullets aiming for head shots? What about assumptions of how long they would take to rot or go hunger? Or major assumptions about how its spread. What if it WASN'T spread through bite? How many bitten people early on would be killed right off by survivors before people caught on?

Holden wrote: "Or what if head shots didn't kill them? How many people woul..."

Good basis for a short story - guy shoots his buddy in the head after seeing him get bit by a 'zombie', then it turn out the zombie really just had a nasty case of food poisoning.

I figure you should hope for the best but prepare for the worst. In any survival situation, people have to make quick decisions based upon imperfect information. Most wouldn't survive simply because there would be too many unknowns and they would not possess the unique skills to quickly adapt. Maybe the better question to ponder is what happens to my soul AFTER the zombies get me! :-)

The more you think about this, the harder the question actually is!

I have read a lot of zombie books. One of the most debated unknowns is the "are they runners?" question. Second to that is the issue of origin and proliferation of the condition. In all likelihood, a real epidemic of zombiism would look a lot like the "28 Days Later" scenario.

I think if you look at the situation from a biological standpoint you could come to a few obvious conclusions:
1. As the zombie bodies deteriorated, so would their abilities.
2. Their pain and/or strength threshold could easily be maximized by their lack of a self-preservation response in their brains and heightened by adrenaline.
3. No "supernatural powers" would be obtained by an infection, though better use of senses, like hearing and smell might be heightened through necessity.
4. An infection would be biological (either bacterial, viral, or prionic)
5. Certain core functions of their bodies would be required to remain in tact in order for biological functionality.

THIS MEANS...
Zombies would be able to run very fast until they snapped an ankle, or succumbed a similar injury. Also, lactic acid could induce some sort of "living" rigormortis. No assumption should be made about their lack of speed.

The longer they are "undead", the worse off they would be, unless consuming blood, flesh, and brains proved to be nutritional. At which point, they might be able to become stronger than their former living selves through survival. I'm sure a few zombies would be in terrible shape, but others would thrive in their place.

The nature of their infections would determine the speed of the spread of the epidemic. If it were bacterial, zombiism would certainly be spread through exchanges of bodily fluids, through bites and scratches, but might take several weeks to fully change an individual - and might even be curable in the first stages of infection.
Viral infections could also pass through airborne blood and mucus and survive for a long time outside of the body, react quickly to a new host, and be very difficult to treat or vaccinate.
As a prion, we could all carry the virus for years and not know it, only to be "afflicted" when our bodies triggered the proteins to unfold. The bites would spread the virus, but would be undetectable from a host who is not showing any signs of active zombiism.
-Prions are also not easily killed through chemical or incendiary methods, so even a charred and corroded ash pile of a former zombie might still carry infectious protein material that could be aspirated or ingested. Luckily, prions are kinda rare as far as infections go...

All in all, I think you could effectively stop a zombie by destroying parts of the central nervous system, as well as the brain itself. Also, by destroying the heart you would stop it from functioning. Lastly, by destroying its digestive system, it would eventually starve, with or without flesh to nourish it.
In fact, damaging the entire brain would be quite difficult when you consider that much of their higher functions (in the frontal lobes) would not be necessary at all for survival so destroying that part of the brain would be useless, and the skull is quite well protected by bone. I say, aim for the chest when distance is a factor and take a second shot if it still moves.

The bottom line in every survival situation, though, is to be prepared. Travel with a buddy, look for escape routes, check for signs of danger and stay alert, have a backup plan, and don't leave yourself exposed.
...And always drink clean water.

-G

G,
Well thought out answer. I think survival is a basic instinct among the living. If the first head shot didn't kill a zombie then possibly decapitation but severing the spinal cord would. Higher functioning zombies would be a reality until the body decays. Of course, fire will reduce anything to ashes.

I actually have a sign on my fence..."Trespassers will be shot. If you get survive you will be shot again!"

A lot of things with the zombie apocalypse are based on the assumption of what we know or have read.

Since technically the heart of a zombie is not functioning and neither are the lungs...what good would a chest shot do?

Yes, I agree. Never go anywhere alone. Four eyes are better than two and six even better. Always have an escape route planned no matter where you are.

But if the infection or virus is airborne...nobody stands a chance. Virus have a nasty habit of mutating.

I just joined this group, so this is my inaugural post and first contribution to this important and often ignored danger.
First off, and most importantly because I live in Canada where firearms are hard to get ahold of, we have to find out how the infection is spread. Is it through bites only, or all bodily fluids? If I get zombie blood on me while fighting my way through a mob with an axe, am I done for? I would argue that zombie blood doesn't flow, and therefore the infectious agent would have difficulty surviving or being transmitted through blood, but I'm not a doctor.

Secondly, and this is my personal theory, I don't think a headshot will necessarily bring down a zombie. You have to know what part of the brain is still functioning - I believe only the brain stem would remain active, the area responsible for lesser functions like moving and eating. That means a shot right to the forehead won't do a damn thing if the bullet gets lodged in the cerebrum. I'd go with the base of the skull personally, which is an even more difficult shot than a headshot. What do you think?

Malbon,

I have often wondered about the zombie lore which says to kill a zombie to shoot them between the eyes or forehead...it just didn't ring true to me. The cerebral cortex in the base of the skull holds all the basic instinct functions. So in my novel, I changed it. Oh the up cry of zombie fans. LOL

It just made more sense to me.

J.L. wrote: "Malbon,

I have often wondered about the zombie lore which says to kill a zombie to shoot them between the eyes or forehead...it just didn't ring true to me. The cerebral cortex in the base of the ..."

I can imagine the hue and cry that would create! But then again imagine the terror when you see the zombie heading towards you, take careful aim, and make that perfect headshot...


And nothing happens.

In my humble opinion, a real-life zombie scenario would prove that zombies would still technically be 'living', meaning a heart and circulatory system would most likely be necessary in order to provide fuel to the brain functions and muscle responses, whether the blood becomes that thick black sludge mentioned in some books, or remaining oxygenated red blood(as in "28 Days Later" infections.)

The idea of a ravenous flesh eating predator further indicates a need for nutrients and a digestive system. No complex organism on this earth can exist without some form of these energy supply systems.

Certainly, biology could change... say, by some rapid mutation (like in the "Resident Evil" games) ...the stomach could revert to a gastropod type configuration, where flesh goes in, is digested, then vomited out - thereby, also propagating the virus among other hosts; some of these systems could be altered or eliminated by a more efficient use of the energy obtained from consuming flesh, or by absorption in the environment; perhaps, cells could even become self-sustaining symbiotic microorganisms, eliminating the need for all other biological systems - by sharing with each other in a closed shell, feeding of the host corpse and somehow hijacking rudimentary brain functions from the body they inhabit, and surviving off of the flesh it can consume.

But still, this assumption leads me to this conclusion: A dry zombie (exsanguinated or malnourished) is a useless zombie. If you damage a body severely enough, the whole of the system could not survive longer than its stored energy reserves.

Even in the most conventional notion of the classic zombie, bordering on the supernatural, even the brain would rot into slime at some point without some sort of internal support.

All other scenarios would have to be classified as "Supernatural" walking dead (as in "Night of the Living Dead" and 90% of all zombie themes since 1968), which I have discounted from my scenario.

Greg,
Fairly well thought out, but what if (lol the author in me)there was no need to for biology that the virus was self sustaining? The consumption of flesh was a carry-over from the human condition rather than a need to digest matter and spreading the virus to new hosts?

Yes, the brain would become decomposed as would the body leading to the ultimate death of a zombie. Malnutrition would speed the decomposition as would non functioning organs.

Not to sound too much like an ass but I find it pretty funny that my original post was I was trying to say "we all have assumptions on how this would go down and nothing to prove them right and that would probably get us killed." And almost everyone's response as been what their assumptions are (which would probably get them killed).

Holden wrote: "Not to sound too much like an ass but I find it pretty find that my original post was I was trying to say "we all have assumptions on how this would go down and nothing to prove them right and that..."

hahaha, touche! that's what I meant by my comment of "The more you think about the question, the harder it is!"

Hey, chances are, in the case if a real zombie apocalypse, it'd be something mundane like the 28 days later rage virus. Dangerous, but at least you can kill them like humans.

...unless it IS something magical, in which case we might be completely screwed no matter how nerdy we are. What's to say ANYTHING would necessarily kill magic zombies? Each cell could be independently reanimated and bent on destruction, sort of a Sorcerer's Apprentice scenario with no sorcerer to come back and fix it.

F.J.R. wrote: "Each cell could be independently reanimated and bent on destruction"

In one zombie series I read, the infection was actually a single organism. It was in control of all of the zombies, but had to learn how to use them properly. If it moved them quickly, they decomposed faster. It was even able to use rats, although their bodies would decompose very quickly.

It was interesting to see the evolution of the organism, as it learned to use the infected bodies more efficiently.

Randy wrote: "F.J.R. wrote: "Each cell could be independently reanimated and bent on destruction"

In one zombie series I read, the infection was actually a single organism. It was in control of all of the zombi..."

Fascinating, I've never seen it done that way. Do you remember what it was called?

F.J.R. -- This is the first book of the series (the worst book of the series, IMO): The Undead Day One

The series is now up to day 7. The action in the book is outrageous, kind of like seeing a kung fu movie with a lot of wire work. The fight scenes remind me of those in the recent movie, The Book of Eli.

Randy wrote: "F.J.R. -- This is the first book of the series (the worst book of the series, IMO): The Undead Day One

The series is now up to day 7. The action in the book is outrageous, kind of like seeing a ku..."

Thanks! Looks potentially intriguing, downloading the kindle free sample.

One or the others comes up free every once in a while.

One thing to remember is that as muscles are worked, ie. running or lifting muscle fibers are torn. I wonder how long it would take for the undead to suffer a torn bicep or other debilitating injury.

As far as the head shot scenario their is a reason zombies die when head shot. One of my characters is a scientist and he uncovers why the undead have risen.