Survivors

[bigpaul]

have just started re-watching the original series of Survivors, i picked up on ...i think it was episode 2 or 3,, that they were talking about the survival rate being 1 in 5,000 and i was trying to relate that to todays population, the official population of the UK is 62 million....so the survivors would number 12,500(twelve thousand,five hundred) and the survival rate in England alone(population 52 million) would be 10,400(ten thousand,four hundred)....make you think, dosent it? i know the British Isles is a small set of islands but this is a low survival rate, try it on your local population numbers..how many would it leave in your town or area, in my small area it would leave maybe 1 or 2 people..thats it.( but then that would suit me fine...provided i was the one!!)

[TOF]

Just applied that to my local Borough and there would be 18 survivors.

[bigpaul]

(21 May 2012, 11:12)TOF Wrote: Just applied that to my local Borough and there would be 18 survivors.

thats enough for a group to get started.

[Skean Dhude]

The important fact is how they go. is it quick, slow, starvation, disease. These are more important in many ways than the actual rate of die off.

[bigpaul]

in the original series it was disease, they referred to it as "The Plague" and they died over a few days, these days it could be anything, pandemic or some other disease, emp, no oil, terrorist attack...you pays your money and you takes your choice!!

[Skean Dhude]

OK. That makes sense with the die off rate.

Now that rate would not be spread evenly across the country. Many would not get the disease in some places, small villages or islands. Some places with high densities would suffer more because that many dying would create more diseases.

So your area is likely to me much more than 18.

[00111001]

(21 May 2012, 11:32)bigpaul Wrote:

(21 May 2012, 11:12)TOF Wrote: Just applied that to my local Borough and there would be 18 survivors.

thats enough for a group to get started.

Unfortunately they may all be layabouts - rather than productive human beings who are not purely wasting our precious oxygen

[bigpaul]

(21 May 2012, 11:57)00111001 Wrote:

(21 May 2012, 11:32)bigpaul Wrote:

(21 May 2012, 11:12)TOF Wrote: Just applied that to my local Borough and there would be 18 survivors.

thats enough for a group to get started.

Unfortunately they may all be layabouts - rather than productive human beings who are not purely wasting our precious oxygen

if they wanted to be fed then they had better get off their backsides...or starve!!

---

(21 May 2012, 11:49)Skean Dhude Wrote: OK. That makes sense with the die off rate.

Now that rate would not be spread evenly across the country. Many would not get the disease in some places, small villages or islands. Some places with high densities would suffer more because that many dying would create more diseases.

So your area is likely to me much more than 18.

cities and large towns would be no go zones with all that dead, even in my small town 1300 bodies would be a huge task to get rid of.

[00111001]

(21 May 2012, 12:00)bigpaul Wrote: even in my small town 1300 bodies would be a huge task to get rid of.

FIRE

[NorthernRaider]

In many well thought out PA novels and fictional stories you tend to find cities become uninhabitable for a few years, first the primary disease outbreak, then the weaker survivors peg out from secondary diseases like cholera and typhoid and starvation, then there is another major surge in diseases such as bubonic and pneumonic plague spread by the inevitable huge surge of growth in the rat population because their is so much to eat. Even the WHO reckon after a major pandemic in a city where all normal health systems fail you could see the place out of bounds for at least 4 years.