I know, I know, I know. The title is kind of an oxymoron. But really who fucking cares, it is zombies we are talking about after all. So after spending the last 5 or 6 days laid up in the house feeling like every sinus in my body was being repeatedly plugged full of cement, and topping it off with the feeling of being under a blow torch while Freddy Kreuger scratched my throat, I pondered at this question of the week. Would a person who died with a sever cold or flu (yes I know if you get bit by a zombie you get sick, die, then stand back up. I'm talking a sickness on top of the sickness) be less effective as a zombie than someone who was bitten while healthy?
My first instinct would be to automatically nominate the healthy zombie as the most effective. BUT!! The sick zombie would quite possibly have more infectious fluids to use on it's victims. Thus in turn making the sickly zombie the more effective one.
Yes these are the things that keep me awake at night. Sad, I know.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I'd guess/assume that the the z-virus (whatever the fuck those fould undead hulks run on) would overpower the original infection and since most viral agents like influenza need a healthy living cell to propagate the risk would be minimum. BUT rotten flesh is chock full of hideous bacteria so yeah.
ReplyDelete