[davep]

Cog's right. Even outside it's bloody noisy. A problem neatly dealt with by my suppressor idea.

BTW I've not noticed a penury of .22LR in France. The rationale for them is obviously that they're so cheap and you can carry far more of them than any other round (and they don't go far over the speed of sound, even the non-subsonic ones).

The question is whether they have enough energy to do a zombie in.

[Tanada]

Cog's right. Even outside it's bloody noisy. A problem neatly dealt with by my suppressor idea.

BTW I've not noticed a penury of .22LR in France. The rationale for them is obviously that they're so cheap and you can carry far more of them than any other round (and they don't go far over the speed of sound, even the non-subsonic ones).

The question is whether they have enough energy to do a zombie in.

In the fiction novels I have read where the Mob shows up they prefer to use 22LR for executions, usually base of the skull behind the ear. I don't have a clue if that is how it is actually done and I have no desire to find out via personal experience.

[vtsnowedin]

Cog's right. Even outside it's bloody noisy. A problem neatly dealt with by my suppressor idea.

BTW I've not noticed a penury of .22LR in France. The rationale for them is obviously that they're so cheap and you can carry far more of them than any other round (and they don't go far over the speed of sound, even the non-subsonic ones).

The question is whether they have enough energy to do a zombie in.

In the fiction novels I have read where the Mob shows up they prefer to use 22LR for executions, usually base of the skull behind the ear. I don't have a clue if that is how it is actually done and I have no desire to find out via personal experience.

How much it takes to kill a Zombie that is already dead is a good question!!
Seems to vary on where in the season or episode the Zombie is and how pretty the shooter is.
In real life one 22 to the brain is usually fatal except for some politicians.

[Cog]

I'm thinking that the older and most wasted a zombie is the more mushier his skull is. From watching the episodes, I've seen zombies killed with a knife to the skull or a hammer. If I'm not mistaken didn't they kill some zombies with a high pressure water hose from a fire engine?

[C8]

I'm thinking that the older and most wasted a zombie is the more mushier his skull is. From watching the episodes, I've seen zombies killed with a knife to the skull or a hammer. If I'm not mistaken didn't they kill some zombies with a high pressure water hose from a fire engine?

Yes, that did happen in an episode.

Really the whole zombie menace has to shrink dramatically as time goes on. Not only are the zombies weaker- but they are exposed to many natural disasters that must pick them off over time. Without civilization, forest fires would rage, flooding and erosion would trap many and flush quite a few into the Mississippi eventually. Just falling into ditches or getting caught in underbrush would trap most.

The simplest method for humans to travel would be to stick to a ridge line as zombies don't appear to climb up hills well. Just follow the Appalachian Ridge and come down for supplies occasionally.

I always felt the faster, meatier zombies on 28 Days Later were scarier.

Some have viewed popularity of The Walking Dead as a sign that people see collapse as coming. I felt this way at first, but now I am not so sure. The main point of the show, to me, seems to be that people survive mainly by identifying who can be trusted and who can't. Life is cutthroat and deception is everywhere. But this is also the theme of many other popular series and movies that are not apocalyptic.

I see The Walking Dead as a show that deals with how to survive in the US with all the deception in our society. Its about becoming tough and not being a victim. This is a pretty universal theme that can be traced to Star Wars, Gangsters, Cowboys, etc.

[PrestonSturges]

In the fiction novels I have read where the Mob shows up they prefer to use 22LR for executions, usually base of the skull behind the ear. I don't have a clue if that is how it is actually done and I have no desire to find out via personal experience.

I believe the Mafia shoots people through the eyes with a .22 In the Sopranos there is a scene where one of the crew gets whacked and he says "Not the eyes!"

[PrestonSturges]

Rule #2 - Always Double Tap

.... and a .22 rifle would have considerably more zing than a pistol. The ideal weapon would be a 10/22 with a suppressor and hi-rise scope rings. Just once I'd like to see someone finding the street full of zombies pull out a .22 and say "I got this."

But most people would quickly get a pole arm, war hammer, brush hook, or 40" length of 1" iron gas pipe.

[Cog]

In the world that Rick and his group inhabit, you want to preserve your ammo for the real threat, which is other human predators. Zombies are rather trivially easily killed if you have a barrier between you and them. I'm thinking of the fence at the prison where the crew would go out everyday and poke the zombie's heads with metal stakes.

[davep]

Rule #2 - Always Double Tap

Mixing Zombieland and TWD? They never seem to double-tap in TWD. They either get the head and it goes down or they miss and keep trying.

I get the point about not wasting real ammo on zombies, but it only costs about 30 dollars for 500 .22LR bullets and you could feasibly carry thousands each.

[PrestonSturges]

In the world that Rick and his group inhabit, you want to preserve your ammo for the real threat, which is other human predators. Zombies are rather trivially easily killed if you have a barrier between you and them. I'm thinking of the fence at the prison where the crew would go out everyday and poke the zombie's heads with metal stakes.

That's a problem with TWD where there is a shortage of guns and ammo. Probably one out of five abandoned car should have a gun in it. Besides the characters being as stupid as gerbils, we also often see the characters fail to pick up guns from bad guys and nobody ever checks for ammo. It's like the dumbest Sci-Fi channel movies where people keep tossing away their guns.

Also, who keeps cutting the grass in TWD? I seems like the zombies are keeping up with the yard work.

[Lore]

Also, who keeps cutting the grass in TWD? I seems like the zombies are keeping up with the yard work.

Your zombie neighbors would be complaining if you didn't.

[davep]

Maybe there's been an explosion of herbivorous zombie animals too, but as they're not attacking humans nobody really cares.

[PrestonSturges]

Also, who keeps cutting the grass in TWD? I seems like the zombies are keeping up with the yard work.

Your zombie neighbors would be complaining if you didn't.

That explains our zombie HOA that sends out zombie threatening form letters.

[steam_cannon]

Are the drugs in Walking Dead Pharmacies still good?

Well generally most OTC drugs are pretty stable as well as animal care products. 6 years out, I think most of the dry tablet drugs will probably be effective. Some drugs like hormones for birth control are so stable they can cause fish in rivers to have gender issues long after the drug has exited the human body. Though tetracycline is one of the drugs where there has been concern in the past as to it's safe shelf life. I think the answer really depends on the specific drugs we're talking about, because shelf life factors will be different for different drugs and drug preparations. The packaging can also be a factor and if it's likely to react with oxygen, for example fish oil pills that go bad after sitting on a shelf for too many months. That said, here are some general facts...

Military research on drug expiration dates:

The program dates to a U. S. effort begun in 1981 to increase military readiness by buying large quantities of drugs and medical devices for the armed forces. Four years later, more than $1 billion of supplies had been stockpiled. The General Accounting Office audited Air Force troop hospitals in Europe and found many supplies at or near expiration. It warned that by the 1990s, more than $100 million would have to be spent yearly on replacements.

The Air Force Surgeon General's office asked the FDA if it could possibly extend the shelf life of these drugs. The FDA had the equipment for stability testing. And because it had approved the drugs' sale in the first place, it also had manufacturers' data on the testing protocols.

Testing for the Air Force began in late 1985. In the first year, 58 medicines from 137 different manufacturing lots were shipped to the FDA from overseas storage, among them penicillin, lidocaine and Lactated Ringers, an intravenous solution for dehydration. After testing, the FDA extended more than 80% of the expired lots, by an average of 33 months.

In 1992, according to the FDA, more than half of the expired drugs that had been retested in 1985 were still fine. Even now, at least one still is.

http://www.terrierman.com/antibiotics-WSJ.htm

Tetracycline degradation and kidney toxicity may be an issue:

Renal Toxicity of Tetracycline Degradation Products
http://ebm.sagepub.com/content/115/4/930.abstract

Only one report known to the medical community linked an old drug to human toxicity. A 1963 Journal of the American Medical Association article said degraded tetracycline caused kidney damage. Even this study, though, has been challenged by other scientists. Mr. Flaherty says the Shelf Life program encountered no toxicity with tetracycline and typically found batches effective for more than two years beyond their expiration dates.
http://www.terrierman.com/antibiotics-WSJ.htm

Safety and Toxicity. Contrary to common belief, there is little scientific evidence that expired drugs are toxic. There are virtually no reports of toxicity from degradation products of outdated drugs.

According to The Medical Letter the only report of human toxicity that may have been caused by chemical or physical degradation of a pharmaceutical product is renal tubular damage that was associated with use of degraded tetracycline (GW Frimpter et al, JAMA 1963; 184:111). Since then, tetracycline products have been changed to eliminate the problem (note: this may only apply to tetracycline products intended for human consumption) [2]. The lack of other reports of toxicity from expired medication is reassuring, however expired medication toxicity is not a well-researched field.

http://www.emedexpert.com/tips/expired-meds.shtml

Drugs that should never be used past their expiration date. Certain medications have a narrow therapeutic index and little decreases in the pharmacological activity can result in severe consequences for patients. Respect expiration date is obligatory for the following medications:
-Eye drops (or other liquid medications) - eyes are particularly sensitive to any bacteria that might grow in a solution once a preservative degrades.
-Anticonvulsants - narrow therapeutic index
-Dilantin, phenobarbital - very quickly lose potency
-Nitroglycerin - very quickly lose potency
-Warfarin - narrow therapeutic index
-Procan SR - sustained release procainamide
-Theophylline - very quickly lose potency
-Digoxin - narrow therapeutic index
-Thyroid preparations
-Paraldehyde
-Oral contraceptives
-Epinephrine - very quickly lose potency
-Insulin - very quickly lose potency

http://www.emedexpert.com/tips/expired-meds.shtml

[C8]

Are the drugs in Walking Dead Pharmacies still good?

Well generally most OTC drugs are pretty stable as well as animal care products. 6 years out, I think most of the dry tablet drugs will probably be effective. Some drugs like hormones for birth control are so stable they can cause fish in rivers to have gender issues long after the drug has exited the human body. Though tetracycline is one of the drugs where there has been concern in the past as to it's safe shelf life.

This is good info. I get seriously sick about every 3-4 years and need a heavy duty antibiotic. I have found that, even though they tell you to take all 10 days worth, that if I stop medicating after day 2 the illness continues to decline and never comes back. I have simply kept the remainder pills and dosed them out to other family members for a day or two when needed to break an infection.

Its always worked and I have avoided over 7 visits to the ER or doctor for family members. There is another advantage in that, since I already have the drugs on hand, I can dose them immediately upon seeing symptoms instead of waiting in an ER. This fast response really seems to knock out an illness before it can get rolling.

[vtsnowedin]

By ignoring the rules on taking antibiotics you have chosen to become one of the worst promoters of antibiotic resistant diseases. If I could identify you I would shoot you on sight.

[C8]

By ignoring the rules on taking antibiotics you have chosen to become one of the worst promoters of antibiotic resistant diseases. If I could identify you I would shoot you on sight.

By ignoring the rules on reading you have typed one of the dumbest posts ever. The net result of my actions is less antibiotic use rather than getting a 10 day supply for each of those 7 illness. But then your "shoot you on site" remark pretty much marks you for mental illness. Maybe the mods need to flag your IP to the feds- we don't need another mass murderer.

[C8]

C8, by not taking antibiotics for the full run, you have done your part to breed antibiotic-resistant strains of the pathogen that infected you. Not only will those resistant bugs infect you worse next time, but they may spread to the general population. You are responsible for a possible public health hazard, not unlike those created the anti-vaccination people.

Actually, if you and your murderous friend kept up on the science you would be reading this:

Stop Taking Antibiotics When You Feel Better?

Taking a shorter course of antibiotics may be just as effective, plus do a better job at preventing antibiotic resistance.

By Adam Hadhazy|Thursday, August 28, 2014

Conventional wisdom: Antibiotic regimens should be taken in full, even after the patient feels healthy again.

Contrarian view: Shorter courses are often just as effective and do a better job at preventing antibiotic resistance.

You know the drill: When you’re prescribed a typical seven- to 14-day antibiotic course, do not, repeat, do not forget to take all the drugs. This take-all-your-pills orthodoxy, championed since the discovery of antibiotics some 70 years ago, is based on eliminating all bacterial culprits as quickly as possible.

Doing so, in theory, reduces the odds that the bugs will develop random mutations or pick up drug-resistant genes from other bacteria. Plus, the sustained antibiotic onslaught supposedly ensures that any hardier, partially drug-resistant bacteria also succumb, and thus don’t pass on “stepping-stone” genes leading to full-blown resistance.

An emerging view, however, suggests that standard long antibiotic courses are wrong on both counts — they’re no better than shorter courses and actually promote antibiotic resistance.

“The science is clear,” says infectious disease specialist Brad Spellberg of the Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute. “Every study that has been done comparing longer versus shorter antibiotic therapy has found shorter therapy just as effective.” A few days of taking antibiotics, it seems, should usually be enough to knock infections on their heels, allowing the patient’s immune system to come in and mop up.

Taking the full course of antibiotics unnecessarily wastes medicine, and more drugs translates to increased evolutionary pressure on the harmless bacteria in our bodies. These “good” bugs can develop drug-resistant genes, which can then transfer to bad bugs.

Furthermore, wiping out drug-susceptible bacteria in infections too quickly makes it easier for drug-resistant bacteria to compete over a host’s resources. Better access to nutrients lets the mutant bugs multiply far more rapidly, upping the odds that they’ll reach a so-called “transmissible density.” That means the resistant bacteria proliferate so much that they can escape and infect another person.

In essence, if you take all those extra antibiotics, you might be doing the worst bugs’ dirty work for them by removing a check on their growth.

Shorter antibiotic regimens, in contrast, intentionally allow some susceptible bacteria to survive in order to help suppress any resistant pathogens. A recent study showed just this: Mice infected with both drug-susceptible and drug-resistant malaria, when treated less aggressively, were 150 times less likely to pass on the resistant pathogens.

Multiple studies demonstrate how doctors might gauge when to end antibiotic therapy. (See “Less Is More? Selected Studies” below.) Thriving bacteria raise blood levels of the hormone precursor procalcitonin, for example; guiding treatment based on procalcitonin concentrations led to half as much antibiotic use across seven studies, with no drop in cure rates. More signs of improved health, such as fever alleviation, could also indicate antibiotics are no longer necessary.

Overall, the accumulating data lend support to the heretical notion of patients, in consultation with their doctors, stopping their pill-popping upon feeling better. “The issue of continuing therapy until all doses are done is an old wives’ tale,” Spellberg says. “There’s no data to support it. You can’t make a cured patient better.”

Citations are in the original article at:

http://discovermagazine.com/2014/oct/8- ... eel-better

[steam_cannon]

This is good info. I get seriously sick about every 3-4 years and need a heavy duty antibiotic. I have found that, even though they tell you to take all 10 days worth, that if I stop medicating after day 2 the illness continues to decline and never comes back.

Generally I don't suggest taking half of any antibiotic medication run, though that's debatable as described in the article above. Also I generally suggest probiotic digestive aids during and after taking antibiotics. Doctors usually forget that detail, but gut bacteria balance can be harmed by antibiotics and can contribute to health problems including depression. So generally probiotics are a good thing. Anyway that's my two cents.

By the way, is it possible you don't want to admit it but the real reason you're not taking the full dose, maybe it's to save extra for when you need antibiotics for helping sick pet fish? Because did you know you can buy all types of antibiotics in identical packaging with identical to human dosage, "for fish" on ebay and from many prepper stores? So if you're possibly saving these antibiotics to use say for sick fish, then you don't have to since they are readily available to buy, you know, for fish.

Besides fish, antibiotics certainly are useful now and then. I had a deer tick bite earlier in the year and my doctor prescribed some preventative antibiotics. I also had a tiny scrape on my leg, which overnight after getting my prescription filled had turned red, hot and looked to be spreading. I decided since I was just starting antibiotics to just keep an eye on it and within the day it calmed down. If you're hiking for a few days or prepping for something, once in a while even a minor scrape that shouldn't be a problem can turn into something bad. So I completely understand why a person might like to have ready access to some antibiotics. Of course for humans, understanding dosage and proper application of antibiotics is the realm of doctors and seeing your doctor is always a better choice then using old antibiotics.