Why Slower Zombies Are Deadlier



What type of zombie is the deadliest? Slow, traditional zombies or modern, fast-moving ones? Let’s review the history of zombie infection modeling and prove that slow and steady wins the race

00:00 Introduction
02:12 SIR Model
05:31 Munz
10:33 Woolley
13:10 Deadly VS Lethal
17:09 My Simulation
21:36 Results

Numberphile – The Mathematics of Surviving Zombies
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DK3njNP-Qz0

Slate Vending Machine VS Sharks
https://slate.com/technology/2022/07/sharks-vending-machines-death.html

#zombiesurvival #science #simulation #math #mathematics

source

11 thoughts on “Why Slower Zombies Are Deadlier”

  1. I have some questions . So if zombies eat the living does that implies that zombies still burn calories. so if a zombie still needs calories or what ever a human body can provide ,that means that zombies still need something to give them energy. So like how early humans would hunt would the slow zombies save there energy for the fight while the humans tire them selves out while fast zombies use up there energy but end up with weaker attacks. or would slow zombies just endlessly flow humans while humans pick them off as they use up there enrage to a point where they cant die but cant move. or if the zombies cant eat could the same concept of fast zombies destroying the bodies of future zombies you mentioned but the fast zombies destroying there own bodies faster whether by them getting into accidents or them not waiting for there fellow zombies and attacking humans by them selves.

    Reply
  2. Really nice high quality video, was expecting a bigger channel, keep up the good work, tho i would advise changing the tumbnail to something a bit more mature (teenage/coleage level), but overall really impresive 😀

    Reply
  3. Faster zombies will break their own legs and tendons due to sprinting without a break.

    Also you can setup sharp wire traps, where simply running at them with enough speed would decapitate or severely wound them. Imagine wiring an entire pine forest.

    Reply
  4. The advantage of having a zombie virus rather compared to a regular one is that it’s easy to tell who is infected and it’s perfectly fine to kill those infected removing their ability to spread, especially if the only way to catch it is from a bite because it seems even claw scratchesalot of the time still don’t infect. And if it’s a disease that can only be spread around to mammals, if mosquitoes could get it we’d be doomed. And if we had it so the zombies could rot to death then we wouldn’t have to worry about a free one as bad. If we kept it to bites and if it could only spread to humans, I feel like it would be a lot harder to get infected. If people had bunkers and a lot of material eventually if zombies could rot to death the disease would die out.

    Reply
  5. I feel like humans should start with a randomly determined chance to fight back (maybe normal distributed so you can still pick a mean value and variance for testing).

    Then Humans with a higher chance to fight back also have a higher chance of survival and would only get taken down by the fast zombies later.

    Reply

Leave a Comment