In setting up the model, the birth rate is given as a constant (capital pi). Clearly the birth rate should be proportional to the number of survivors S.
This doesn't materially alter the thrust of the argument, which presupposes a short outbreak with pi := 0 anyway, but does negate the conclusion of the first section, that "an outbreak of zombies will lead to the collapse of civilisation, as large numbers of people are either
zombified or dead."
In reality, the first ODE just states that the sum of (living+zombies+dead) only increases when new humans are born.
Fun paper, but I don't think destroyed zombies ever resurrect. The fatal decapitation or brain destruction shouldn't put the zombies into the R set, but should just remove the zombies from the population altogether. I'll have to see if octave can run their matlab code :)
The authors of the paper mention the unlikeliness of a direct application of the models to zombie outbreaks, but go on to elaborate on other uses of the model.
From the actual paper: 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, or
diseases with a dormant infection.
This is, perhaps unsurprisingly, the first mathematical analysis of an outbreak of zombie
infection. While the scenarios considered are obviously not realistic, it is nevertheless
instructive to develop mathematical models for an unusual outbreak. This demonstrates
the flexibility of mathematical modelling and shows how modelling can respond to a wide
variety of challenges in ‘biology’.
So, wouldn't it be more practical to work on a model for something that has real life applications instead ?
And I don't get the "allegiance to political parties" thing, unless this means that we should interpret those with certain political affiliations as zombies.
It's a tempting connection but I don't think it will hold.
"... So, wouldn't it be more practical to work on a model for something that has real life applications instead ? ..."
What makes you think theoretical research into imaginary scenarios isn't needed? Back in May this year I would have loved to have read this paper and tried it out ~ http://www.flickr.com/photos/bootload/3517984501/ #melbourne #zombie #shuffle
Not necessarily. The article makes no mention of assumptions about zombie behavior, so any disease fitting the virility assumed by the researchers is susceptible to the same model. Somehow I doubt any government will go for 'eradication' as an epidemic solution, though.
If you research solutions for an epidemic you have to come with realistic solutions that can be implemented, not pretend the whole thing is some kind of computer game.
Even if 'eradication' would be the only viable solution I still doubt that it would be implemented.
It would not be comfortably chosen, therefore it should not be presented as an option? Knowledge is knowledge. I am pro it.
Also, the funding came from at least one grant (OERA) that pushes for youth interaction and outreach from active researchers. It seems like zombie math --- 'treating it like some kind of computer game' --- is a pretty good way to accomplish that; how much money was spent to make a few graphs in MATLAB, to such good effect?
This isn't any more a waste of money than when scientists study "real" problems, but between lobbyists and the uneducated Fox-News-watching masses, policy does not follow the scientific results. Might as well study zombies, at least it's more fun.
Excellent point. And as the Discussion section of the paper lightly suggests, "possible real-life applications may include allegiance to political parties." Which brings to mind applying the model to certain negative cultural memes, which are certainly highly infectious and, in their way, produce...zombies!
