EWZSG, Supplemental
One thing I didn't address in the preceding parts of EWZSG was Max Brooks' section on protective clothing. This was primarily because I didn't really think much of it when I started writing this. But then I realized that some rather significant factors were overlooked.
In minor outbreaks, the advice makes a certain amount of sense: The risk of dying at the hands of another human would still be fairly low, so the main thing is to make sure you don't get bitten. The thing about archaic suits of armor is that they're probably not what most people are going to think of to protect themselves. Authentic plate mail is extremely expensive, after all. Making your own chainmail is actually a fairly popular hobby within certain groups like the SCA, but still, not overly practical depending on the situation.
Given the fact that zombies are caused by a virulent, contagious, infectious disease, it would seem prudent to simply avoid close combat at all costs. Max Brooks says that "severing a limb also brings the possibility of contact with the virus through the exposed area." How about contact with a brain that has been so heavily rotted by a virus, the frontal lobe "melts away?" Can't be healthy.
I know, I mentioned curb-stomping zombies in the Part 3, but that's going with the assumption that smashing zombie skulls is at least somewhat safe, as implied by Brooks' talk of bludgeoning and using blades against zombie heads. If jamming a trench knife's spike down into a zombie's skull won't infect you, a good set of combat boots should serve you well.
So then, what good is a piece of clothing that stops a bite but still lets infected saliva contact the skin? Apparently, being splattered with an exploded zombie's remains are enough to cause an infection, but a zombie's own wounds are no threat to you unless you have open wounds. It's this inconsistency that makes it tough to give reliable advice on the matter. Say you've got a fabric that will take anything a human mouth can give it (which isn't much, humans have a fairly weak bite) and prevent the skin from breaking. Is that enough?
It simply seems that the most prudent course of action is to never get into a situation with zombies where any kind of armor might be desired. This doesn't mean that armor is useless, however.
In your class 3 and 4 outbreaks, with massive devastation and apocalyptic levels of rising dead, the threat from other humans is dramatically increased. Those bulletproof vests and helmets that Brooks describes as being a useless hindrance at best might come in handy. In a situation where panicked survivors may shoot at you, or you may take fire from a band of looters or worse, suddenly Kevlar becomes a lot more attractive.
Remember, we're talking about a massive breakdown in society at this point. The nearest available emergency room may be in the next state. A wound that would be almost trivial by today's standards with air ambulances could quickly be fatal without modern medical attention. While an IBA vest might attract attention, there are many different vests out there that can provide adequate protection without drawing attention to you. If nothing else, it might be handy to have on-hand in defense of your "fortress," or at least stowed and available while on the move.
This is also another reason why Brooks' ammo loadouts are piteously low. It's bad enough dealing with a slow group of idiots who want to bite you, but don't know how to think, maneuver, run, or most importantly, shoot back. Let's say you exceed his recommendations and carry 60 rounds of ammunition for your civilian AK-47 clone, 30 loaded in the magazine, with one fully loaded spare. How long do you think that ammunition's going to last? Even if you spend a few minutes exchanging potshots with looters before they give up and decide to go victimize someone else, congratulations: You've just expended half your ammunition in a very noisy exchange. If zombies can hear moans from far away, how many do you think THAT'S going to attract? And now you're down to your last magazine already.
Already the situation's looking grim, but it gets worse: as the adrenaline fades, you notice that breathing feels odd, and start to feel pain in your chest and discover that one of the punks got lucky with a .22. You're the new owner of a sucking chest wound! This is a life-threatening injury at the best of times, but now you've got the added perks of being on foot, up to hundreds of miles away from medical attention, with at least dozens of ravenous hostiles approaching, and just 30 rounds of ammunition for your rifle. You also have your sidearm and a spare magazine for it, but does that really even the odds as the wound really begins to catch up with you?
Don't discount the value of armor and ammo.
That wound up being a lot longer than intended. The actual Part 4 should follow soon after I wake up tomorrow.
EDIT: It'll be up eventually, but I'm dealing with non-Internet issues that are getting in the way right now.
In minor outbreaks, the advice makes a certain amount of sense: The risk of dying at the hands of another human would still be fairly low, so the main thing is to make sure you don't get bitten. The thing about archaic suits of armor is that they're probably not what most people are going to think of to protect themselves. Authentic plate mail is extremely expensive, after all. Making your own chainmail is actually a fairly popular hobby within certain groups like the SCA, but still, not overly practical depending on the situation.
Given the fact that zombies are caused by a virulent, contagious, infectious disease, it would seem prudent to simply avoid close combat at all costs. Max Brooks says that "severing a limb also brings the possibility of contact with the virus through the exposed area." How about contact with a brain that has been so heavily rotted by a virus, the frontal lobe "melts away?" Can't be healthy.
I know, I mentioned curb-stomping zombies in the Part 3, but that's going with the assumption that smashing zombie skulls is at least somewhat safe, as implied by Brooks' talk of bludgeoning and using blades against zombie heads. If jamming a trench knife's spike down into a zombie's skull won't infect you, a good set of combat boots should serve you well.
So then, what good is a piece of clothing that stops a bite but still lets infected saliva contact the skin? Apparently, being splattered with an exploded zombie's remains are enough to cause an infection, but a zombie's own wounds are no threat to you unless you have open wounds. It's this inconsistency that makes it tough to give reliable advice on the matter. Say you've got a fabric that will take anything a human mouth can give it (which isn't much, humans have a fairly weak bite) and prevent the skin from breaking. Is that enough?
It simply seems that the most prudent course of action is to never get into a situation with zombies where any kind of armor might be desired. This doesn't mean that armor is useless, however.
In your class 3 and 4 outbreaks, with massive devastation and apocalyptic levels of rising dead, the threat from other humans is dramatically increased. Those bulletproof vests and helmets that Brooks describes as being a useless hindrance at best might come in handy. In a situation where panicked survivors may shoot at you, or you may take fire from a band of looters or worse, suddenly Kevlar becomes a lot more attractive.
Remember, we're talking about a massive breakdown in society at this point. The nearest available emergency room may be in the next state. A wound that would be almost trivial by today's standards with air ambulances could quickly be fatal without modern medical attention. While an IBA vest might attract attention, there are many different vests out there that can provide adequate protection without drawing attention to you. If nothing else, it might be handy to have on-hand in defense of your "fortress," or at least stowed and available while on the move.
This is also another reason why Brooks' ammo loadouts are piteously low. It's bad enough dealing with a slow group of idiots who want to bite you, but don't know how to think, maneuver, run, or most importantly, shoot back. Let's say you exceed his recommendations and carry 60 rounds of ammunition for your civilian AK-47 clone, 30 loaded in the magazine, with one fully loaded spare. How long do you think that ammunition's going to last? Even if you spend a few minutes exchanging potshots with looters before they give up and decide to go victimize someone else, congratulations: You've just expended half your ammunition in a very noisy exchange. If zombies can hear moans from far away, how many do you think THAT'S going to attract? And now you're down to your last magazine already.
Already the situation's looking grim, but it gets worse: as the adrenaline fades, you notice that breathing feels odd, and start to feel pain in your chest and discover that one of the punks got lucky with a .22. You're the new owner of a sucking chest wound! This is a life-threatening injury at the best of times, but now you've got the added perks of being on foot, up to hundreds of miles away from medical attention, with at least dozens of ravenous hostiles approaching, and just 30 rounds of ammunition for your rifle. You also have your sidearm and a spare magazine for it, but does that really even the odds as the wound really begins to catch up with you?
Don't discount the value of armor and ammo.
That wound up being a lot longer than intended. The actual Part 4 should follow soon after I wake up tomorrow.
EDIT: It'll be up eventually, but I'm dealing with non-Internet issues that are getting in the way right now.