would you even travel with a group? would you try to be a lone wolf? I think its human nature to want to be in a group during crisis but this is precisely what gets people killed in these types of films.
shareDefinitely in a group you have more chances of survival, if you settle somewhere you can cover daily tasks more easily, and have better protection but strict rules are a must!
Even in this movie, no one would have got sick if they followed the rules and didn't take a sick person in the car.
[deleted]
I wouldn't know what I would do I would want a man with me someone I love I also probably would find a safe place to stay and board up the place. And just wait wait until the disease dies out and probably then look for survivors maybe even a colonie of survivors.
shareGroups are dangerous and prone to self destructing. But you need some company to no go completely bonkers, and the group needs to be small enough so you can look for each other BUT also know what the other person is doing ALL THE TIME to cover your own back and act in consequence when accidents (like Bobby's) happens.
I'd say the magic number (for this kind of doomsday scenario, anyway) is two.
In the movie world war z Brad Pitts character says "moving is surviving, if you stay in one place you're dead" paraphrasing
shareA bit different movie this virus is a killer not a zombie turning virus like in Z. People have a reason to keep moving in that situation were for carriers if they keep moving they run the risk of running into someone affected.
I'm not clumsy it's just the floor hates me, the table and chairs are bullies and the walls get in
The best of humanity (those who care for other and help the sick) are already gone. It remaind only the socipath and non-emphatic people. I guest that i stay whit the father, to helm im care of is child and drink the potassium. The world is dead, and wath is left dont have any value.
share