The week’s funny news was a study by the University of Ottawa modeling… the undead. Yup. Whatcha gonna do when they come for you (or, rather, your brain and intestines)?

Not too much good, the study says:

An outbreak of zombies infecting humans is likely to be disastrous, unless extremely aggressive tactics are employed against the undead. While aggressive quarantine may eradicate the infection, this is unlikely to happen in practice. A cure would only result in some humans surviving the outbreak, although they will still coexist with zombies. Only sufficiently frequent attacks, with increasing force, will result in eradication, assuming the available resources can be mustered in time.

Soon to be walking our streets: our zombie brethren (photo credits: Eric Ingrum).

Well, colour me skeptical! With all the (not very good) jokes about the undead, reanimation and walking dead that have been cracked by the world’s news media this year, I don’t want to crack some cheap jokes about channeling Boyd’s spirit, but I think he wouldn’t be too afraid.

For one, we’re all familiar with the typical ‘zombie shuffle’ - slow, shuffling gait. Zombies depend on three strategic assets: (1) their numbers, (2) their easy way to increase those numbers, and (3) their superior strength.

They are, on the other hand, (1) dumb as two rocks, (2) slow, (3) move in masses.

To a Boydian observer, the result ought to be pretty clear. Zombies do not disperse, they move in masses, so area denial weapons are especially effective. Absent that, a quick, mobile human (unzombified) resistance could operate within the zombies’ OODA loops. Zombies quite probably act in a predictable manner, too. So while the Ottawa model is, to my limited knowledge, mathematically sound, I disagree with the outcome. It emphasises force too much, and ignores the non-zombie advantages - swiftness, tactics and area denial. On the whole, the temporary win of zombies against an unprotected public would be quickly reversed by the protected survivors denying the zombies their main advantage, namely (1) food, (2) bodies to reanimate, while exploiting their strategic weaknesses to deal damage.

Still, it hits the spot on this one:

The key difference between the models presented here and other models of infectious disease is that the dead can come back to life. Clearly, this is an unlikely scenario if taken literally, but possible real-life applications may include allegiance to political parties […].

Hell yes. Now I can see that.