Is the vampire apocalypse upon us?

I've seen a graph making the rounds about the "power of social distancing". The graph charts the exponential growth curve in the transmission rate of the coronavirus.

Now, I'm not a statistician or epidemiologist, but the graph strikes me as quite deceptive. It's like the graph was produced by some dude binging on zombie/vampire/werewolf apocalypse flicks. You know how it goes. One vamp turns a victim into vamp. Two vamps can do twice what one can. So the propagation of vampires expands at an exponential rate: 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32…

But isn't that awfully mechanical and simplistic? It's pure math, but everyone isn't equally susceptible, are they, so the exponential curve is quite artificial, is it not?

One might argue that social distancing is still useful to lower the infection rate. But we should avoid hyperbolic graphs based on unscientific projections that fuel hysteria. 

Outbreak

28 Days Later and 28 Weeks Later raise ethical issues. Although it's a variation on the zombie genre, it resembles a rabies outbreak. Of course, this is science fiction, yet there's the question of whether something like that might be realistic: 

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/10/1001027-rabies-influenza-zombie-virus-science/

Could rabies be bioengineered? Could it be weaponized? The future holds terrifying prospects for biowarfare. 

Rabies causes a viral encephalitis which kills up to 70,000 people/year worldwide. Infected animal saliva transmits the viral encephalitis to humans. Rabies is one of the oldest known diseases in history with cases referred to from more than 4000 years ago. For most of human history, a bite from a rabid animal was uniformly fatal. In the past, people were so scared of rabies that after being bitten by a potentially rabid animal, many would commit suicide.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK448076/

Patients killed themselves or were killed when bitten by a dog believed to be rabid.

Rotivel, Yolande. "Introduction (to excerpt of CDC article)". www.fas.org. Federation of American Scientists. http://www.fas.org/ahead/docs/rabies.htm

https://web.archive.org/web/20090426031557/http://www.fas.org/ahead/docs/rabies.htm

Although rabies is now curable if the patient receives prompt treatment, it's understandable that victims used to kill themselves, given the horrific progression of the disease. I don't think we always have a duty to let nature take its course. Why wait for the worst to happen?

Assuming that suicide is justifiable in that situation, is homicide justifiable in that situation? I don't think that follows. 

For one thing, you're not going through what I'm going through. So that's my call. 

In addition, we have certain rights to do to ourselves what we don't have to do to others. If I'm entitled to walk a tightrope, that doesn't entitle me to make you walk a tightrope.

If a rabies victim tries to attack somebody, then self-defense (lethal force) is justifiable. 

In addition, it is justifiable to restrain or quarantine an asymptomatic rabies victim in advance of the furious rabies stage. 

If, however, the victim is asymptomatic, to kill him just because the victim is potentially dangerous to others is murder. Social duties obligate us to accept certain risks in the interests of others. 

To take a comparison, if there are two snakebite victims, but only enough antivenom to treat one, there's a sense in which the patients are rivals. My survival depends on you not getting the antivenom, and vice versa. But that doesn't give me the right to kill you so that I can have it for myself. 

During the progression of the disease, there's a point at which the victim ceases to be psychologically human. However, the victim is still entitled to be treated with human dignity. For one thing, the victim will revert to a human mindset after death, when the soul is released from the psychotic effects of acute encephalitis or meningoencephalitis. 

The facts of life are conservative

"In the Zombie World, Only the Conservative Survive" by David French

News you can use

And now for an important public service announcement:

http://phys.org/news/2015-02-zombie-outbreak-statistical-mechanics-reveal.html

Zombie rights

Cotard’s syndrome is a relatively rare condition that was first described by Dr. Jules Cotard in 1882. Cotard’s syndrome comprises any one of a series of delusions that range from a belief that one has lost organs, blood, or body parts to insisting that one has lost one’s soul or is dead. 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2695744/

By the logic of the transgender movement, individuals who self-identify as zombies should be free to eat people. Cannibalism is a Constitutional right. And not just munching on corpses, but eating people alive. 

Getaway car

For lurkers who think Tblog devotes too much time to esoteric theological conundra, here's something practical for a change:

http://www.tilsungroup.com/blog/picking-the-right-vehicle-for-the-zombie-apocalypse/

Death tax

http://vaviper.blogspot.com/2012/05/tax-implications-of-zombie-apocalypse.html

The Rage virus

Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned (Rom 5:12).

Some zombie films borrow a motif from the werewolf mythos. In the werewolf mythos, a bite (or even a scratch) from a werewolf will turn the victim into a werewolf. That's also one variant in the vampire mythos.

In zombie movies of this ilk, a zombie isn't dead. The victim never died. There's a transformation scene in 28 Weeks Later where Don kisses his wife (who's a carrier of the Rage virus). We see him turn into a zombie on the spot. 

Some people compare original sin to heredity. But a better analogy might be a communicable disease. Zombies are fictitious, but there are mood-altering and mind-altering diseases. Likewise, diseases can be contagious, congenital, or hereditary. 

At one level, a disease can be mood-altering in the mundane sense that if you feel rotten physically, that will affect your attitude or outlook. Closer to home are diseases which mess with the endocrine system. They can affect personality. Most directly are neurological disorders as well as brain cancer. 

Finally, we have the mysterious category of mental illness. Although some mental illnesses have a clear physical basis, others do not. They change personality. Distort the perception of reality. Mental illness can be hereditary. 

Zombie alert

http://vaviper.blogspot.com/2013/10/infographic-plausibility-of-various.html

Answering the greatest question of our time

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-02/fyi-would-zombies-be-conscious

The Walking Dead

This is a deliberately meandering post, but it has a common thread.

Roger Ebert recently updated his list of the greatest films of all time:

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2012/04/the_greatest_films_of_all_time.html

What’s striking, but not surprising, about his list is that most of the films on the list don’t seem to be very entertaining. Rather, these are generally “serious” films. Artistic films.

If he were asked to compile a list of his favorite films, rather than the greatest films, I suspect the list would be quite different. And that raises a question: should great art be dull and difficult? Is it wrong to judge a film by how enjoyable it is to watch?

If he was stranded on a desert island, would he rather have Apocalypse Now or That Man From Rio in his satchel?

Mind you, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with art that’s intellectually stimulating. That stretches us.

But at the end of the day, this is fiction. These aren’t real people. And even when it’s based on a “true story” (e.g. historical novel), these aren’t people who are a part of your life or mine.

Now, in fairness to art, one function of art is to vicariously broaden our experience. My life is just a sliver, a random sampling of human existence. Plays, movies, novels, and TV dramas give us a chance to imaginatively live many lives within a single lifetime. And that extends to things that don’t even happen in real life–like time-travel, or magical worlds, or your counterpart in an alternate universe.

And I think that’s a legitimate expression of the human imagination. But it’s still fictitious. So that limits how seriously we should take it.

Again, one theoretical justification is that fiction, even though it’s not real life, is about real life. Life-like. And so we can analogize to our own experience.

And I think that’s valid, too. But a vicarious experience is still vicarious. So that still limits how seriously we should take it.

Speaking for myself, my TV and movie viewing is basically recreational. A way to unwind after a long day. When I’m too tired to do anything more important, but not tired enough to go to bed. A way to slow the mind down.

For instance, I’ve seen a few episodes of The Killing (an AMC crime drama). But it’s not something I view regularly, and that’s because it’s just not very entertaining. What it does, it does well, but it’s like a rainy day that never ends.

Now that might strike some people as frivolous criticism. It’s not the sort of drama I’m supposed to enjoy.

But it’s not like I have a duty to watch it. I really don’t care if a fictitious character is murdered. I really don’t care if her fictitious murderer is apprehended. And why should I spend my time watching depressed imaginary characters in depressing imaginary situations? Is this remedial punishment for the viewer? Is it supposed to be virtuous to put yourself through all that?

Which is a build-up to The Walking Dead. Here’s a tribute to The Walking Dead:

http://www.speculativefaith.com/2012/01/20/gods-grace-draws-me-to-the-walking-dead/

Honestly, I find this a bit pretentious. Like an elaborate effort to justify a guilty pleasure. I don’t think it’s wrong to view The Walking Dead. I just don’t think that requires you to make it more important than it really is.

The zombie genre ranges along a continuum. Some are cheap spatter films. Some are black comedies. And some are serious explorations of the human condition.

The zombie genre also fudges on some practical issues. Do zombies eat their victims alive, or do they turn their victims into zombies? It can’t be both. Likewise, wouldn’t zombies starve to death after a few months?

I’ve seen some episodes of The Walking Dead, but I’m not a regular viewer. For one thing, it’s no pleasure to watch. Again, someone might object that that misses the point, but for me, that is the point. It’s not that significant.

In addition, you don’t have to view many episodes to get the moral of the story. So it’s fairly repetitious. Variations on a common theme.

But from a Christian standpoint, The Walking Dead raises some hypotheticals that are useful to reflect on.

i) Do you, or should you, keep on living when you have nothing left to live for? Does the survival instinct prevail, or does loss of hope result in losing the will to live?

What would happen if you suddenly lost everyone who made life worthwhile? What would happen if your future was utterly bleak?

Losing the will to live doesn’t mean you die. Short of suicide, the body may keep you alive for years, even if you’re just going through the motions.

ii) Speaking of suicide, that’s an issue in zombie drama. If it’s just a matter of time before the zombies get you, is it preferable to take your own life? It’s one narrow escape after another. Sooner or later your luck will run out.

iii) It’s also a study in how people cope, and disintegrate, under constant fear. You’re never safe. You can never let your guard down. The danger is unrelenting. You never again enjoy a good night’s sleep. You’re wakeful. You have nightmares.

Of course, human beings can’t maintain a state of heightened alertness. It wears you down.

iv) In addition, it’s a study in how the survivors get along. Total strangers are thrown together. Do they bond, or do they turn on each other from the unbearable strain?

This is fictitious, but there are real-world counterparts, like POW camps.

v) Finally, a zombie drama can also model those pragmatic dilemmas that ethicists like to toy with. Do you risk the few for the many, or do you risk the many for the few?

Zombie Pope

Truth Unites... and Divides said:

"The pope, Archbishop of Canterbury, and US Conference of Bishops would deplore discrimination against zombies."

I'd think the pope would stand up against the zombies.

I'm sorry, TUAD, but I think it may already be too late!



Of course, this is JPII.

No word on Benedict XVI's undead status . . . yet!