United States takes one step closer to zombie apocalypse

The horror film begins when the disease transmission initially affects the homeless and people living in poverty, since “better vaccines” are only affordable for the wealthy. That’s the sort of thing that could cost countless lives, when it spreads to everyone who cannot afford treatment. Some folks in power have been giving us advice that disease prevention involves working hard, earning enough money to pay for your own medical care (no matter how expensive), and not being a needy burden on society.

They make it very clear that they could care less about people who do not contribute to their lifestyle, and believe the world would be a better place if there were fewer needy people in it. This is just another way to speed that up. Maybe policy changes in healthcare, housing, labor, and public assistance are taking too long to bring about the results they want.


I’m not in the impression that they could care less.

I’m not entirely sure I understand you. Are you saying this policy change is the first step in an effort to kill off the lower classes, Dishonored style? Because… it seems like kind of a risky, and expensive way to kill poor people, when refusing to offer them any material support is cheap and requires no effort. Not to mention the possibility of people like the world health organization stepping in to contain the outbreak (like how they eradicated smallpox).

Also, any situation in which you try to vaccine the upper and middle classes (I have access to vaccines, and I’m a very long way from being wealthy) to kill off the lower classes… well it doesn’t work, because so many people would be vaccinated as to make it difficult to impossible for the illness to be transmitted.

Finally, medical researchers tend towards being… you know, good people. That’s why they’re medical researchers. Maybe you could find a couple who would endorse spreading a rat plague, but we’re talking large scale conspiracy here, and this government is not good at secrets. Like, at all.

I’ll clarify. I’m not saying it’s the first step, but it could be the last step given the nature of diseases. As for access to vaccines, we’re in a society where there are medications that cost thousands of dollars per dose. If production and sales were restricted, how would any international aid organization acquire it? It’s a backhanded way of not offering the majority of people any support, but the result is the same.

I cannot agree with your claim about medical researchers. Unfortunately, the ones who participated in unethical/illegal experiments and wartime atrocities have given me a different perspective on what someone in that profession might do. Those incidents were initially kept secret, so organizations and governments seem to be better at conspiracies than you think.


I have that poster, ordered back when the CDC started their zombie preparedness campaign. That and the graphic novel. I’ll admit I was more excited about it then than I am now.

Be Prepared

1 Like

Well, typically pharmaceutical companies are international, and, while we let corporations do whatever they want in the U.S., that doesn’t apply everywhere. That’s why prescription medication is often cheaper in other countries.

I’m not sure what your second paragraph is about, because your first paragraph seems to say you didn’t intend to imply a conspiracy theory about the government creating diseases to kill the poor, but your second paragraph is largely defending that idea. So, I’ll just point out that most unethical researchers still do unethical research in the same of saving people. That doesn’t make it ethical, but it’s an ends justifying the means situation. Your Tuskegee researchers, for example, did horrible things, but it was to better understand a disease, not to kill people (that was just a side effect). So if the poor are infected deliberately, it’ll be under controlled, horrifying circumstances, not just a general horrifying release of the illness. Regarding government conspiracies, I didn’t say that governments were bad at secrets in general, I said this government is bad at secrets. If they were good at secrets, we probably wouldn’t all know they bought an election from Russia. And, of course, if this was the start of a secret government program to kill the poor people, they probably would have just authorized illegal research under the table, and not publically lifted a research ban. (Though, admittedly, they’re really bad at secrets)

All that aside, however, I didn’t say that this was a good idea. I said that it’s wrong to say that “better vaccines” is a minimal reward. Better vaccines and vaccine administration killed smallpox, and smallpox killed about 2 million people per year, if 1967 was a representative year. That is a massive amount of lives saved. The benefits from good vaccine research are incalculable. The risks are on a similar scale, and as I said originally, I am not qualified the judge the likelihood of those risks. All I’m saying is, if you think “better vaccines” Is a trivial result, you probably don’t appreciate vaccines enough.

On a side note, you mention that some drugs cost stupid amounts of money. This is true. Vaccines, however, tend to be extremely cheap, by drug standards, and I have no idea why. I believe they’re cheap to produce, but that doesn’t mean jack-shit in terms of drug pricing. I know vaccines save health insurance companies a lot of money, and insurance lobbies are pretty powerful, but reasonable prices of all drugs would, presumably, save health insurance providers money, and god knows that isn’t the case. Anyone know what’s up with this?

1 Like

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.