Judith **Comic book and Season 4 Episode 8 SPOILERS**

John_D80

Comic book readers know that Judith's demise occurs at about this point relatively speaking, albeit in a very different manner.

An awful lot to be considered when weighing this one up. Main one for me is, if she is dead, wouldn't there be a Walker nearby eating her? They eat their prey where they find them. Also I dont think she would have already been consumed whole in such a short space of time. Although I do think the makers of the show would not want to show anything too gruesome in relation to a baby so it is hard to call.

Who is she with if she is alive? Tyreese annd the kids? Did someone from the bus run back into the prison after Maggie got off the bus?

I do think she is a reduntant character so without sounding too bad I think it would be better for future plotlines if she was dead. But I dont think she is.

Ideas?

GavRedKing

Didnt Rick and Carl kill 2 Z's after they turned to approach the baby carrier?

I voted other as I think with this show it really could be any scenario, its being pointed out that the straps were opened and a Z wouldnt have been able to do this but that wouldnt explain the blood if she was rescued by one of the girls.

My gut feeling is that shes dead and instead of showing a baby being eaten they've went with the blood in the carrier route.

Cork boy 55

Shane's Daughter(so-called Judith) is in heaven with Shane and Lori.
The only outstanding Question is who is Carl's father?
It certainly is not Rick.

LOSTfan57

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

Shane's Daughter(so-called Judith) is in heaven with Shane and Lori.
The only outstanding Question is who is Carl's father?
It certainly is not Rick.

??????????????

5starpool

Heaven, heh.

John_D80

If she's not dead, why keep her alive?? She doesn't serve any purpose as a character.

Anyone else have any thoughts on the theory among some fans of the TV show that babies born after the ZA aren't infected??

smcgiff

John_D80 wrote: »

Anyone else have any thoughts on the theory among some fans of the TV show that babies born after the ZA aren't infected??

That wouldn't make sense, unless it was supernatural in origin. That would be disappointing to say the least.

John_D80

I cant see it being the case either but there is some decent arguments being made to back it up as a possibility on some forums. And some downright crazy ones I might add.

Don't get what you mean by saying it would have to be of supernatural origin though?

smcgiff

John_D80 wrote: »

Don't get what you mean by saying it would have to be of supernatural origin though?

How else can it be explained that new borns are immune? What are other websites saying?

John_D80

I just didn't understand what you mean by supernatural.

One pretty popular theory that was put forward was that the virus died after an initial incubation period and the post-mortem transformation and re-animation is only a lingering side effect. The thinking being that it will die out completely when the last survivor of the ZA dies, and anyone born after a certain indeterminable point doesn't have it.

OctavarIan

I haven't read the comics, but from rewatching (and slowing down) the parts with Tyreese and the kids towards the end you can clearly see Tyreese running away from the area nearby Judith's chair while cradling something in his arms. My money is on it being Judith and not something else, like vegetables from the farm.

smcgiff

John_D80 wrote: »

I just didn't understand what you mean by supernatural.

One pretty popular theory that was put forward was that the virus died after an initial incubation period and the post-mortem transformation and re-animation is only a lingering side effect. The thinking being that it will die out completely when the last survivor of the ZA dies, and anyone born after a certain indeterminable point doesn't have it.

That doesn't make sense. If the active agent is dead then anyone living shouldn't turn into a zombie.

By supernatural I mean unless the people turning into Zombies is an act of god and anyone born afterwards is "forgiven".

I cannot think of a plausible reason as to how new borns would be immune from turning, but older people still turning into zombies.

PhiloCypher

One theory put forward by Screenrant is that Michonne has her and that they will use Judith to follow up on that telling moment from earlier in the season where she breaks down holding her, suggesting she may have had and lost a child. I'd be all for that personally if they choose to go down the route of having her survive.

John_D80

smcgiff wrote: »

That doesn't make sense. If the active agent is dead then anyone living shouldn't turn into a zombie.

By supernatural I mean unless the people turning into Zombies is an act of god and anyone born afterwards is "forgiven".

I cannot think of a plausible reason as to how new borns would be immune from turning, but older people still turning into zombies.

Plausible? Eh this is a zombie apocolypse we are talking about here. You know that, right? Plausibility is kinda suspended for the 40 and some odd minutes each week this show is on. :-)

But if you want plausible, well every virus (or whatever this is) has characteristics. Is it totally impossible for post-mortem reanimation after the virus has expired to be a side effect of whatever this is?

I'm not saying I agree with the theory but it is out there. Very few people who read the comic books (like myself) pay much attention to it but it has been put forward by some fans of the TV show.

smcgiff

John_D80 wrote: »

Plausible? Eh this is a zombie apocolypse we are talking about here. You know that, right? Plausibility is kinda suspended for the 40 and some odd minutes each week this show is on. :-)

Of course, but you have to remain within the boundaries that the show sets itself.

It's been proposed that a zombie state has come around by a virus (I think).

To my mind it doesn't seem plausible that if it was caused by a virus that a new born would be immune, but others not zombies will become zombies once they die.

The only satisfactory solution to my mind would be an anti-dote.

But, if it does turn out as proposed then I'll go ho-hum, but it won't really take away my enjoyment of the series, I'll just add it to all the other plot holes that are there. I note them, but still enjoy the show.

Gbear

I suspect it was left ambiguous intentionally.

But if she's just dead it would be incredibly cheap.

I can't understand leaving the ambiguity for any other reason than because she's still alive.

Flippyfloppy

Gbear wrote: »

I suspect it was left ambiguous intentionally.

But if she's just dead it would be incredibly cheap.

I can't understand leaving the ambiguity for any other reason than because she's still alive.

Sophia the 2nd!!

5starpool

Gbear wrote: »

I suspect it was left ambiguous intentionally.

But if she's just dead it would be incredibly cheap.

I can't understand leaving the ambiguity for any other reason than because she's still alive.

I wouldn't be surprised if she is still alive, but hopefully for the sake of the plot she isn't. A very compelling reason for the ambiguity is just not wanting to show a baby being eaten or a babies leg being chewed on. It was left a bit too ambiguous though for her not to be alive I reckon, despite what happened in the comics.

smcgiff

5starpool wrote: »

despite what happened in the comics.

They do go out of their way, it seems, to show it's not the same narrative to the comics. Well, not exactly anyway :pac:

5starpool

Looking forward to seeing Abraham (John from Southland) introduced. As a general thing I'm guessing based on the comics the next few seasons will be something like:

Season 4 Part 2 - On the road with Abraham and reuniting with stragglers from the gang, and the journey North.
Season 5 - Find the new gated community outside DC, and life therein. Maybe meet Jesus.
Season 6 - Start of the Negan stuff perhaps?

I must re-read the comics actually. Currently reading the 3rd book in the Governor trilogy, which is pretty badly written overall I think, although some of the backstory is interesting.

username123

smcgiff wrote: »

That doesn't make sense. If the active agent is dead then anyone living shouldn't turn into a zombie.

By supernatural I mean unless the people turning into Zombies is an act of god and anyone born afterwards is "forgiven".

I cannot think of a plausible reason as to how new borns would be immune from turning, but older people still turning into zombies.

I think that its plausible to suggest that there is some immunity.

It would be a rare thing for any virus to have 100% infection rate anyway, some people would have natural immunity due to small biological differences.

So perhaps some people who have been killed (by being eaten or other ways) but have not re-animated, but we just dont know about it.

And perhaps among the living, there are some people who are immune - but we just dont know it.

If living people with immunity had children, those children could be immune.

It wouldnt wreck the shows premise for me - in fact, Id find it more believable than 100% rate of infection.

I think Judith is with the alcoholic guy - he had a big gunshot wound so that would explain the blood in her carrier.

smcgiff

username123 wrote: »

It wouldnt wreck the shows premise for me - in fact, Id find it more believable than 100% rate of infection.

Don't think anyone would disagree with this. However, the point originally raised was that the next generation would be different. That's what would be hard to defend as being plausible.

username123

smcgiff wrote: »

Don't think anyone would disagree with this. However, the point originally raised was that the next generation would be different. That's what would be hard to defend as being plausible.

Yeah I don't think all new borns could be immune. Or could they? I don't know enough about viruses, but could it be plausible that an airborne virus could do its business, infect everyone, then die out in the air due to weather, rain etc, and not transmit to new borns?

allanb49

I'd say she's alive and that while at the moment a redundent character i'll summise as to say she has antibodies due to been born with the virus that can help cure it.

Or they could have her eaten by cannibals.

But i'd go with the cure to link back to the CDC back in the first episode.

5starpool

I think people are thinking too much about this. What would be the point of a baby being immune from infection? The only way they would know that is if she died and didn't reanimate which would be too late, or if she was bitten and didn't die, but a baby being bitten and surviving for any length of time isn't likely. Even for it to be any use they would have to get to a functional CDC type place and get her tested and then people work on that.

A cure would effectively be of limited use anyhow even if they were all magically injected with it. What use would it do? The zombies are already dead, they can't be rehumanised as their organs are rotted and dead. Immunity or cure isn't a place they are going to, at least any time soon I'd be sure although I would like to see a direction where they find out more about it.

Comics:

No mention of anything to do with this though in 10 years worth of comics (although only about 2 years or so of elapsed time).

username123

5starpool wrote: »

I think people are thinking too much about this. What would be the point of a baby being immune from infection? The only way they would know that is if she died and didn't reanimate which would be too late, or if she was bitten and didn't die, but a baby being bitten and surviving for any length of time isn't likely. Even for it to be any use they would have to get to a functional CDC type place and get her tested and then people work on that.

Well it wouldnt be of any use to the particular baby if she was immune but then died, but obviously, the use of it would be to generate hope in a world of desolation.

Currently the post apocalyptic world holds no hope. Everyone is infected. When you die you turn. You cant get away from the dead - ie, even if you established a safe community, the whole thing could be ruined by Granpa Joe dying peacefully in his sleep and then reanimating and turning half the community into walkers.

So whats the point? Whats the point in trying to survive at all if there is no hope for the future?

I think at the moment, the hope is that they will find some hope! Immunity could be that hope.

LOSTfan57

Kirkman has said there is no cure.........

username123

LOSTfan57 wrote: »

Kirkman has said there is no cure.........

Yeah, that makes sense. But immunity isn't a cure.

LOSTfan57

username123 wrote: »

Yeah, that makes sense. But immunity isn't a cure.

Whatever you want to call it no. Everyone dies and turns.

username123

LOSTfan57 wrote: »

Whatever you want to call it no. Everyone dies and turns.

That makes it all a bit pointless then doesn't it?

LOSTfan57

username123 wrote: »

That makes it all a bit pointless then doesn't it?

Makes what pointless?

username123

LOSTfan57 wrote: »

Makes what pointless?

The premise of the show, anyone trying to survive, humanity.

If there is no hope for immunity or a cure, what's the point in trying to stay alive? To just be the last man standing? There is no point if that's the situation.

5starpool

Th point is that people and humanity in general always struggle for survival. In theory there could be a new way of living if a point was reached where the majority of the walkers were killed (which should probably already have happened after a couple of years, but I digress) and humanity rebuilds in some way with the survivors shaping the new form of civilisation albeit with the understanding that when you die you need to be killed again, and the ensuing precautions that come along with that such as secure sleeping areas and illness treatments precautions.

It is a long way off in TWD, but in such an apocalyptic plague scenario it is the likely way it would play out I'd suggest. Get a foothold, create some semblance of a leadership structure, organise ways to fight back and eradicate as many as you can, and then get on with life as best you can. Even if the plague killed/zombified 99.5% of the population, taking the US for example there would be around 1.5m survivors which is more than viable to rebuild civilisation, especially considering a similar ratio worldwide is 70m people.

Civilisation would take a huge step back technologically but enough would be retained to rebuild and come back slowly. The resilience of mankind is the story.

In TWD though there seems to be an unending supply of zombies and even in the Georgia backwaters every time there is a big commotion within hours there are hundreds of zombies, no matter how many times they have killed hundreds before. Yes, obviously it is a zombie show so realism isn't high on the agenda, but there shouldn't be that many of them always nearby just waiting to be attracted in their slow shuffling manner to an explosion or whatever, especially when the living in the surrounding areas have been killing them at a decent pace. Some people are still turning, but that majority are already zombies.

Slightly off topic though perhaps

username123

5starpool wrote: »

Th point is that people and humanity in general always struggle for survival. In theory there could be a new way of living if a point was reached where the majority of the walkers were killed (which should probably already have happened after a couple of years, but I digress) and humanity rebuilds in some way with the survivors shaping the new form of civilisation albeit with the understanding that when you die you need to be killed again, and the ensuing precautions that come along with that such as secure sleeping areas and illness treatments precautions.

While I dont disagree with this as a somewhat plausible scenario, I think its just too knife edge to work well. People die unexpectedly through accidents or natural disaster, whatever civilisation grows from the survivors is at too high a risk of someone dying and ruining it all. Not to mention the risk from other humans like the Governor wanting what youve got.

Even if we got into high tech solutions like brain implants that explode when the body dies thus rendering reanimation impossible - who would implant them?

Or an island solution - a certain number of survivors gather and go to some island that they can definitively clear of walkers - but there is always the risk of an unexpected death, or a walker washing up in the waves etc..

If there is truly no immunity and no cure possible - then I think the show is just based on watching the dying gasp of humanity - which is disappointing.

LOSTfan57

username123 wrote: »

While I dont disagree with this as a somewhat plausible scenario, I think its just too knife edge to work well. People die unexpectedly through accidents or natural disaster, whatever civilisation grows from the survivors is at too high a risk of someone dying and ruining it all. Not to mention the risk from other humans like the Governor wanting what youve got.

Even if we got into high tech solutions like brain implants that explode when the body dies thus rendering reanimation impossible - who would implant them?

Or an island solution - a certain number of survivors gather and go to some island that they can definitively clear of walkers - but there is always the risk of an unexpected death, or a walker washing up in the waves etc..

If there is truly no immunity and no cure possible - then I think the show is just based on watching the dying gasp of humanity - which is disappointing.

i do think you do miss the point of the show. you don't follow the comics either do you?

username123

LOSTfan57 wrote: »

i do think you do miss the point of the show. you don't follow the comics either do you?

I have them but I havent read them.

ok - whats the point of the show? Do enlighten me!

leggo

LOSTfan57 wrote: »

Kirkman has said there is no cure.........

Don't put too much stock into that, there's nothing to say he can't change his mind. Sure your username is about Lost and for the entire series the writers said

it wasn't a dream, then hey the final scene has them all realising it was (kinda) a dream

. These things change as per necessity. And while the comic books may have that bleak ending, with TV there's a much greater requirement for endings to be defined. So some sort of a cure being found (likely with an asterisk that allows Kirkman to save face, or an angle that hadn't been considered but essentially reaches the same end -

ala Lost

) is still very possible.

5starpool

username123 wrote: »

While I dont disagree with this as a somewhat plausible scenario, I think its just too knife edge to work well. People die unexpectedly through accidents or natural disaster, whatever civilisation grows from the survivors is at too high a risk of someone dying and ruining it all. Not to mention the risk from other humans like the Governor wanting what youve got.

Even if we got into high tech solutions like brain implants that explode when the body dies thus rendering reanimation impossible - who would implant them?

Or an island solution - a certain number of survivors gather and go to some island that they can definitively clear of walkers - but there is always the risk of an unexpected death, or a walker washing up in the waves etc..

If there is truly no immunity and no cure possible - then I think the show is just based on watching the dying gasp of humanity - which is disappointing.

If they ever got to the point (it'd be way beyond the scope of the show I'd say) where civilisation was recovering then something like you say above would be treated far differently than it was at the start. If 20 people were living in a settlement and one person got bitten by a stray walker they would likely not get time to kill too many before they (and those they bit) were put down. At the start of the outbreak the reason it would have spread so fast was panic, bigger numbers of people of course, and ignorance of what was happening. None of those would be factors in a world slowly recovering, even if there was no cure. It wouldn't necessarily take any fancy brain implant things, just a bit of extra caution such as secure sleeping quarters and if you shared a room with someone who turned then tough, but you can't get out to kill others.

Humans would endure and adapt in ways that would have been unthinkable beforehand. Even if for the first few years it is a very fragmented society, unless almost everyone was dead, people would coalesce at some point, even if only larger regional networks of communities once they had figured out a way to provide enough food for everyone. That would be the key thing to survival in larger groups I think.

username123

5starpool wrote: »

If they ever got to the point (it'd be way beyond the scope of the show I'd say) where civilisation was recovering then something like you say above would be treated far differently than it was at the start. If 20 people were living in a settlement and one person got bitten by a stray walker they would likely not get time to kill too many before they (and those they bit) were put down. At the start of the outbreak the reason it would have spread so fast was panic, bigger numbers of people of course, and ignorance of what was happening. None of those would be factors in a world slowly recovering, even if there was no cure. It wouldn't necessarily take any fancy brain implant things, just a bit of extra caution such as secure sleeping quarters and if you shared a room with someone who turned then tough, but you can't get out to kill others.

Given what we have seen in the prison where people die unexpectedly - they do get to do a lot of damage before they get put down so its still a massive risk.

The only way I could see it working would be a night watch type society where there are people with weapons watching over sleepers.

Still doesnt cater for the natural disaster scenario though. Imagine a situation like the hurricanes that they had recently in the states?

With smaller settlements there is no chance for the reproduction rate to recover - a settlement of 50 people over a 50 year period - they will lose people to walkers, to disease, to old age, to accidents. The reproduction rate is likely to never match the numbers they are going to lose to those four.

LOSTfan57

leggo wrote: »

Don't put too much stock into that, there's nothing to say he can't change his mind. Sure your username is about Lost and for the entire series the writers said

it wasn't a dream, then hey the final scene has them all realising it was (kinda) a dream

. These things change as per necessity. And while the comic books may have that bleak ending, with TV there's a much greater requirement for endings to be defined. So some sort of a cure being found (likely with an asterisk that allows Kirkman to save face, or an angle that hadn't been considered but essentially reaches the same end -

ala Lost

) is still very possible.

I think you need to rewatch LOST.......

LOSTfan57

username123 wrote: »

Given what we have seen in the prison where people die unexpectedly - they do get to do a lot of damage before they get put down so its still a massive risk.

The only way I could see it working would be a night watch type society where there are people with weapons watching over sleepers.

Still doesnt cater for the natural disaster scenario though. Imagine a situation like the hurricanes that they had recently in the states?

With smaller settlements there is no chance for the reproduction rate to recover - a settlement of 50 people over a 50 year period - they will lose people to walkers, to disease, to old age, to accidents. The reproduction rate is likely to never match the numbers they are going to lose to those four.

Well i reccomed you read those comics.
For an idea of what the point is!

username123

LOSTfan57 wrote: »

Well i reccomed you read those comics.
For an idea of what the point is!

No, no, no, you don't get away that easy!

We're posting in the television forum and you tell me I've missed the point of a show. Forget the comics. Tell me the point of the show please?

LOSTfan57

username123 wrote: »

No, no, no, you don't get away that easy!

We're posting in the television forum and you tell me I've missed the point of a show. Forget the comics. Tell me the point of the show please?

Ok then well have you watched all the episodes or are one of the skipper/skimmers who dont watch all the episodes? If its the latter I dont wanna waste my time.....and its all gone quite when i answered your challenge

5starpool

username123 wrote: »

Given what we have seen in the prison where people die unexpectedly - they do get to do a lot of damage before they get put down so its still a massive risk.

The only way I could see it working would be a night watch type society where there are people with weapons watching over sleepers.

Still doesnt cater for the natural disaster scenario though. Imagine a situation like the hurricanes that they had recently in the states?

With smaller settlements there is no chance for the reproduction rate to recover - a settlement of 50 people over a 50 year period - they will lose people to walkers, to disease, to old age, to accidents. The reproduction rate is likely to never match the numbers they are going to lose to those four.

I'm more discussing the crazy real world hypothetical, not the TWD version. The people in the show take far less precautions than anyone would if it were a real world scenario, which is obviously for action purposes. A group of 50 even is not sustainable as an isolated group for 50 years, that's why I said that over time as things stabilised and more order was restored even at a local level between local settlements, things would be more viable for a new society of sorts but with some differing rules. You asked what the point of living would be if there were no hope of a cure or an end to the dead reanimating, and that is what I was trying to answer.

username123

LOSTfan57 wrote: »

Ok then well have you watched all the episodes or are one of the skipper/skimmers who dont watch all the episodes? If its the latter I dont wanna waste my time.....and its all gone quite when i answered your challenge

All the episodes.

username123

LOSTfan57 wrote: »

I think you need to rewatch LOST.......

C'mon!! The ending of Lost was appalling!! Ruined the entire show. I'd never bother re watching after such a terrible end.

leggo

LOSTfan57 wrote: »

I think you need to rewatch LOST.......

Ah now, you're either gone into blinkered fanboy mode or you're trolling here. The ending basically said that

the flash-forwards were a collective state of limbo, a shared mental experience (dare I say it...a dream?), that allowed them to be with the people they shared their most meaningful days with

. It's a major cop-out/workaround/asterisk for a show that promised

it wouldn't all end in a dream or with them in limbo.

And a similar cop-out is equally as possible here, regardless of what Kirkman has said in the past, with a TV watching public that now demands either clearly defined (ala

Breaking Bad

) or ingeniously ambiguous (ala

The Sopranos

) endings. I don't think the writing standard is capable of the latter quality, so they'll have to go for clearly defined. There, you're left with:

1. They all die.
2. Certain people live under a new rule and are forever destined to live out this pitiful existence until they meet their maker.
3. There's a cure (or some form of end to the zombie apocalypse) found.
4. Or they just learn to live in cohesion with the zombies and use them for menial tasks,
   Shaun of the Dead
   -style.

username123

LOSTfan57 wrote: »

..and its all gone quite when i answered your challenge

It certainly has gone quiet from your side. I am still waiting for you to enlighten me as to what the point of the show is? Youve avoided answering twice now, cmon, out with it, Im expecting some magical pearl of wisdom that will illuminate me and dispel the fog through which I have been watching!

Cork boy 55

5starpool wrote: »

Th point is that people and humanity in general always struggle for survival. In theory there could be a new way of living if a point was reached where the majority of the walkers were killed (which should probably already have happened after a couple of years, but I digress) and humanity rebuilds in some way with the survivors shaping the new form of civilisation albeit with the understanding that when you die you need to be killed again, and the ensuing precautions that come along with that such as secure sleeping areas and illness treatments precautions.

It is a long way off in TWD, but in such an apocalyptic plague scenario it is the likely way it would play out I'd suggest. Get a foothold, create some semblance of a leadership structure, organise ways to fight back and eradicate as many as you can, and then get on with life as best you can. Even if the plague killed/zombified 99.5% of the population, taking the US for example there would be around 1.5m survivors which is more than viable to rebuild civilisation, especially considering a similar ratio worldwide is 70m people.

Civilisation would take a huge step back technologically but enough would be retained to rebuild and come back slowly. The resilience of mankind is the story.

In TWD though there seems to be an unending supply of zombies and even in the Georgia backwaters every time there is a big commotion within hours there are hundreds of zombies, no matter how many times they have killed hundreds before. Yes, obviously it is a zombie show so realism isn't high on the agenda, but there shouldn't be that many of them always nearby just waiting to be attracted in their slow shuffling manner to an explosion or whatever, especially when the living in the surrounding areas have been killing them at a decent pace. Some people are still turning, but that majority are already zombies.

Slightly off topic though perhaps

Actually they are not that far into the countryside
They left Atlanta City to the south west on I-85 and did not get very far
all The locations
are close to the Main highway (Interstate 85 )The farm, Prison and wood bury Wood bury is mentioned as being 50 miles from Atlanta
The Atlanta city metropolitan area has 5.5 million people in it and Georgia has 10 million people,
Its been shown that the larger herds use the Interstate and main roads to move.
They should have moved deeper into countryside and away from main roads

Population density of Georgia, that big REddish spot in North is the Atalanta city metropolitan area
They are just to the south west of that,

username123

Well the numbers don't really make sense anyway:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/daves4/heres-why-the-walking-dead-doesnt-make-any-damn-sense

Paddy Cow

I could buy into the theory that children born after the apocalypse aren't infected by the virus. Lets say that the virus was initially airborne (could've been a government bio-chemical test that went wrong or something) so only people exposed to it initially ie everyone on the planet, is infected. The initial viral infection is dormant. The virus attaches itself deep in the brain of it's human host, waiting to become activated. Any virus that couldn't find a host dies after a certain period.

The first zombies were probably the result of death by natural causes/accidents. Instead of starting to decay, death triggers the virus which restarts the brain. We know there are two ways to turn into a zed - die and turn or get bitten, become sick, die and turn. In 28 Days Later, all it took was one drop of infected blood in someone's bloodstream and they turned in about 20 seconds. In TWD, the survivors don't seem worried about getting zombie blood on them. We've seen people enter fights with open wounds and finish covered in zed blood, yet they didn't turn.

So how else could a zombie bite infect someone if not through the blood? Saliva. This is produced by the sympathetic nervous system "Its general action is to mobilize the body's nervous system fight-or-flight response. It is, however, constantly active at a basic level to maintain homeostasis." After the virus hot wires the brain and all sorts of freaky sh!t starts happening, the virus begins the next stage of it's cycle, multiplies and is stored in the saliva. When a zed chomps down on someone, a concentrated dose of the next-stage virus is left in the wound. It might take awhile for the virus to enter the bloodstream, which would explain how they were able to save Hershel by cutting off his leg. If cutting off the bite isn't an option, then the person becomes sick. This is because the second stage virus has traveled to the brain and activated the dormant virus and the two virus's working together overwhelm the person and death occurs.

Anyone born a certain time after the apocalypse won't have been exposed to the virus and it is airborne, not genetic, so they won't have inherited it. If there is no virus in their brain, then when they die they simply stay dead. If they get bitten, unless the bite itself caused a mortal wound, the person would only have one form of the virus in their system and while the sickness is unpleasant, if they are in good health, they should be able to fight it.

It would be nice as well if there was a time limit on how long the virus could live as a dormant host in someones brain - like say a few years and after that if the person is still alive they get to be normal again. I love TWD in general (never read the comics so not a proper fan :P) but it depressed the hell out of me when I found out that everyone is going to turn no matter what. Even if none of the above is true, I have myself convinced it's very possible as while I know that

the show isn't real

:eek: I

like to pretend it is and want to hope that the people I have become attached to have some chance of beating the odds.