To think if a zombie apocalypse happened, that there would not be an immediate breakdown in law?

[clairemcnam]

In any zombie apocalypse film ever, within days there are roving dangerous gangs killing people and stealing things. I don't think this would happen in Britain. Yes there would be thefts of food, and lots of breaking into shops, but no there would not in days be gangs of roving murderers killing people and bringing fear.
AIBU?

Let people let off steam? So rob, rape and murder?

I give it 24 hours max.

48 h for the poor sods trying to maintain some order to realise they need to defend their own families and the country to go into chaos.

and that's with an optimistic view

But in the 2011 riots it was mainly looting of shops. Sure that would happen within a day. Idiots going and stealing big TVs, etc. But going round murdering people? That is quite different.

I consider setting fire to shops with flats above it going around and trying to murder people.

OP, Walkingdeadfangirl is referring to a movie series

copied into a crap tv show on netflix if I remember rightly.

there won't be a zombie attack any time soon, I feel.

zombies are so yesterday
We had aliens threat before

wonder what the next threat is going to be?

It would very quickly descend into panic and chaos. People would be trying to leave cities, stealing food and medicine, weapons and anything else to survive. It might not happen in the first few days, but certainly within the first few weeks.

Think what you would do to survive and protect your family. For most people it’s be at any cost! And then you get the people who just like stealing/killing and this is the perfect scenario to let loose!

Think what you would do for your family?
But unless it is temporary I would not want myself or my family to live in that kind of world. And little kids, disabled and the elderly would be the first to die.

And I don't think it is worth living if it is at any cost.

I think it’s pretty accurate.
People would do whatever it takes to survive. They’ll loot houses as well as shops. Most people are ok but a lot of people are quite horrible and controlling.

And I don't think it is worth living if it is at any cost.

what's your alternative?
suicide, starve, become a slave, see your kids die of an infection which would be nothing with a couple of dose of penicillin?
To leave in peace, you need to be obviously strong enough to deter any attacker, not just with zombies.

Alternative is euthanasia. I saw in one zombie series a couple did that. I think it is realistic that a fair few people would if it became clear that no help was coming.
And penicillin lasts about 6 months before it expires. So nobody could stop their kid dying of an infection after the first 6 months anyway.

Society is a fragile thing it only takes a few things for it to descend into chaos.

There is a good book by Alex Scarrow, about oil running out, it takes less than a week for it all do descend into chaos, places are flooded as thinks like the Thames barrier stop working.

... anyone playing Days Gone?

Have a look at what happens in disaster zones after earthquakes, hurricanes etc where there is less infrastructure, corrupt government or aid is lacking.

It would be like that. 100%.

And this was in a western nation- the richest in the world
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_Hurricane_Katrina_in_New_Orleans

Agree with the majority here it really wouldn't be long. Although I already have my plan for the zombie apocalypse I spend far too much time thinking about this

Actually I think the zombies themselves are relevant here - here's evidence that in situations of 'societal breakdown' that happen due to stuff like natural disasters, people are more inclined to pull together and help each other than to hoard resources and fight others for survival (see Rebecca Solnit's book A Paradise Built In Hell for instance). But situations where you've got violence and conflict (i.e. Zombies killing people) straight off the bat are, I think, more likely to lead to more death and violence. People are more likely to react violently if they're threatened with violence (or feel that they have been).

It's not about "human nature" - it's perfectly possible for humans to cooperate without a central authority giving orders. But it does matter what the circumstances are. Violence begets violence.

Lucky for us zombies don't exist and this won't happen! But it does also explain why civil wars are more dangerous than, say, tsunamis.

i don’t understand zombies. how do they make new zombies? surely they would just eat everyone they happened upon. so where do new zombies come from?

actually, vampires don’t make sense either, now i think about it.

anyway, it’s all moot.

i can’t run, so should the apocalypse occur i plan to ride it out in the small village store down the road. it has food, fags, a post office (which will surely have some sort of emergency planning document to find out where the bunkers are), and in the event of impending grisly death, a wide range of wines and spirits.

But Hurricane Katrina did not lead to marauding gangs of murderers. It led to looting - understandable as people needed food and drink. And lots of rumours that were not true about paedophiles and murders.

I take your point though that with zombies where people are being killed, the violence will encourage other violence.

also, anyone in East Anglia should try and make it to Leiston. they’ve been practising for the breakdown of society for years now.

exwife zombies make no sense at all. If they were real best plan is to hide in attic with food and water and wait it out.

What was the fil-u-m Scottish fella leaves his wife to the zo!bies?

Society would crumble very quickly. Emergency services would collapse. Hospitals would be overrun (they are basically a zombie buffet). All that would be important was your family’s survival. I for one would fight for our survival at any cost.

I am sure zombies on the hunt for brains to eat would walk straight past quite a few people.

What was the fil-u-m Scottish fella leaves his wife to the zo!bies?

28 Weeks Later?