Slashdot Mirror
CDC Warns of Zombie Apocalypse
scotbuff writes "The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have written an article about preparing for a zombie apocalypse on their blog. The CDC knows that a zombie apocalypse is no joke. 'If zombies did start roaming the streets, CDC would conduct an investigation much like any other disease outbreak. CDC would provide technical assistance to cities, states, or international partners dealing with a zombie infestation. This assistance might include consultation, lab testing and analysis, patient management and care, tracking of contacts, and infection control (including isolation and quarantine). It’s likely that an investigation of this scenario would seek to accomplish several goals: determine the cause of the illness, the source of the infection/virus/toxin, learn how it is transmitted and how readily it is spread, how to break the cycle of transmission and thus prevent further cases, and how patients can best be treated.'"
While the CDC doesn't think that there'll actually be a zombie apocalypse, they do recognize that some really bad scenerios involving contagious disease could happen, and the effect on society could come to resemble that of a zombie apocalypse.
Instead of biting you to infect you, someone coughs on you instead, either way you end up dead.
And the CDC is arguably more important than the US Military, and neglected. Which is REALLY a bigger threat to us, the military power of any foreign adversary, or a highly contagious disease that knows no borders?
At this point I'd like to remind everyone that 44,000 of us die every year from antibiotic resistant germs. Exactly how many of us died in 9/11? 3000? And yet we spend trillions on our military, and... HOW MUCH, on new antibiotic development???
--PeterM
Personally, I think it's brilliant. Someone out there was assigned the job of getting as many people as possible to read some really boring emergency preparedness webpage, and they succeeded a million times over. It's on the front page of the WSJ.
Really? How many known diseases cause humans to turn and attack each other?
Usually we call it religion.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
The reason for this should be clear - has ANYONE here read a disaster preparedness article in the last 3-4 years? Probably not. This got the post on the front page of Google News, /., CNN, and countless other news sites. The page was "Slashdotted" all afternoon. How many people got educated about what to do in a disaster because they thought, "Oh, zombies, lulz!" I know I did. This stunt got them more exposure than $25 million in advertising could. I'd MUCH prefer that our government do cheap and more effective things whenever possible (especially when I get a laugh as a bonus), as opposed to tossing money everywhere for no effect.
Yup. And the whole thing matches perfectly. I mean, let's compare the symptoms of zombification and religiousness:
Aggressive behaviour towards people with brains? Yup.
Mindless repetition of the same utterances? Yup.
Congregation with other diseased? Yup.
My friend, I guess you're on the right track here.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Plus every zombie movie I've ever seen (except Shaun of the Dead) the living were fucked over by one fact: they didn't seem to know what zombies were.
"Oh Jimmy! I thought you were dead! You got hurt though and kind of have an odd vacant expression, let me give you A BIG HUG... OW! Why are you biting me, drooling, and grunting?!? No! Stop! Jimmy, I don't understand! Are you hungry? Oh good, a big crowd of people just showed up to help me.... OH GOD WHY ARE THEY BITING ME TOO?!?! THIS MAKES NO SENSE!!!"
Maybe some people who are so sheltered they've never seen a zombie movie would make that rookie mistake, but the rest of us will be all
"I'm sorry grandma... well sorry you're dead anyway, but no use crying over spilled milk and I've ALWAYS WANTED TO DO THIS WITH A CHAINSAW!!!"
I think the technical term you are looking for is "transmutation" or "transubstantiation" rather than "transfiguration." In the Christian context, "transfiguration" refers to an event where Jesus ascended a mountain with his disciples, shone with a bright light, conversed with (famous, deceased) prophets Moses and Elijah, and was declared to be God's son by a voice from the heavens.
While I do not believe in transubstantiation, and consider it to be a silly idea, it is not silly for the reason that you (and many ill-informed Christian-bashers) appear to believe. The language and understanding of transubstantiation is based on the technical language of Aristotle's philosophy and metaphysics. The "substance" that is purportedly changed when bread and wine are "converted" to the body and blood of Christ does not refer to the outward material form of the foodstuffs, but rather to inner "true" properties (a technical distinction in Aristotle's terminology that does not make sense in the context of other, more common modern metaphysical views). The outward form remains bread-y and wine-y; the Christian receiving the sacraments does not expect the bread to taste any more meaty or the wine any more bloody than regular. The reason that transubstantiation was rejected by Luther in the Protestant Reformation was precisely because of this reliance on finicky Aristotelian metaphysics (which was not biblically supported, nor self-evidently sensible), rather than due to the ridiculousness of bread materially transforming into human flesh, which no Christians (Roman Catholic or Protestant) actually believed in.