Would this be a good way to keep people away from you after the SHTF?

[John]

Thinking on these lines and thinking the unthinkable.
May be not so far as 20 miles away but place a few dead bodies, both human and animal, and don't forget a few dead birds, with large official looking signs reading 'anthrax contaminated area, keep out', or plague or some such other similar signs. Only thing is make it realistic. Could also sign it as Infectious Disease Test Facility or some such.

John

(4 January 2013, 01:00)Rupert Wrote: If you are in a nice location and you don't want people coming and trying to get what you have got you could direct them away.

You could put signs on lamposts or paint on the road Red Cross refugee 20 miles down this road.

Making sure these lead people away from your location.

Peope are more likely to go somewhere where they will get help. Than go somewhere where they would not.

When they get there they look around the area and see there is no Red cross camp and they will most liklely keep going the way they are in the hope of actually getting to a Red cross camp and getting help.

They are not very likely to think we have been doubled-crossed and search the area to find out who did it and lynch them.

I know this cold-hearted, but better you live than die in a SHTF situation.

[Metroyeti]

I guess it depends on the event in a panfemic you could write infected or dead inside on doors. If you knew people had set up "rescue centres" you could put signs up saying there x amount of miles away

[Highlander]

You would have to be very suttle with this idea, people are not daft,..and deperate people are more likly to take more risks that they would normaly,...so signs of danger, i.e contamination of some sort might not work,... it would not be hard to vision some desperate folk seeing a sign of Anthrax and trying to pass with hankachiefs against their mouths, if they did, they would soon see the trick,.....and besides if you went along that road with dead animals and the birds were still flying around and singing their hearts out, it would look a bit suss

Instead of a `warning` sign, it would be a much better idea to give a `hopefull sign`,... you give people hope and they will follow,... give people a warning, and they are more likely to try it out and take a risk

[bigpaul]

probably just better to keep out of sight, you could do what they did in the war and that is to remove all the signposts!!

[Scythe13]

(7 January 2013, 12:46)bigpaul Wrote: probably just better to keep out of sight, you could do what they did in the war and that is to remove all the signposts!!

Or turn the signs around to confuse people.

[bigpaul]

(7 January 2013, 12:52)Scythe13 Wrote:

(7 January 2013, 12:46)bigpaul Wrote: probably just better to keep out of sight, you could do what they did in the war and that is to remove all the signposts!!

Or turn the signs around to confuse people.

well, in WW2 they were expecting an imminent invasion and so to confuse the foreign troops they removed all the sign posts, i think it was just easier to remove them and throw them in the back of a truck than to bother turning them around, but hey, that would work too.