Survivor communities outside the known world

[Gwyrion]

Of course, they also thought that slaves were 3/5 of a person, plus that slavery was totally fine.  They thought a lot of dumb and crappy things.

You too, we're not here to debate politics. If you really want to, open a different thread or something, and go talk about how much everyone used to hate each other there, but this thread is whether or not America could survive this plague to any extent, it's not about racism throughout history.

[Gwyrion]

America has several points against it, for the mainstay of the population:
1. Low self admission rates for medical issues (we tend to go the hospital, not the doctor)
2. Tendency to 'Work Thru' an illness instead of taking time off.
3. Vast city centric population tied to high rural/suburban mammal infestation rates.
4. Centralization of resources prior to distribution
5. Car Centric Culture - We could be anywhere in the country fairly quickly, and the road system is redundant enough that 'cutting off' a route is nearly impossible.

That said, America does have a few areas where survival would be manageable if they could avoid or contain initial infection. Some of the Islands off the east coast would be good candidates, as would some of the Northern Inland areas where the mountains, hills, or badlands could make good defenses. The abundance of fire arms don't count for much in this scenario, but the abundance of hunters does.

That said, I'd place the total number of survivors in the low 50 to 60 thousands, mostly due to point 5 complicating the difficulty in isolating communities for desperate people.

I see your point, but I'd put the survival rate a bit higher. I've lived in enough places in America to know that a few of them would shut down it's borders and kill anyone who tried to enter, preventing easy spreading of the disease. Now, rats could be an issue in the major cities, but many of the cities I've been to had little to no rat problems. I'd say that many of the northern regions would be relatively okay, while only a few southern regions would survive. I could see Texas surviving if only because of their insane mentality when it comes to outside threats, which is to cut itself off as completely as possible. I agree with you, though, that our refusal to visit a doctor might work against us, but it could be an advantage, since sick people would be more likely to lock themselves up than rush to the doctor and spread their disease to everyone they met. The safest place in America would probably be Alaska or Hawaii, though, considering how remote they both are.

[Haverberg]

Its possible some of the northern Indian reservations in the upper Midwest would survive. They're isolated for the very specific reason they were forced to the most remote areas to start with, and they're used to having to "make do." The only problem is Indians living in the metro areas going back to the reservation and carrying the rash virus with them, but the odds are still better than anyone who would stay in the cities.

Specifically Pine Bend, Red Lake, and White Earth tribes. Doubtless there are other remote tribes as well, although those are beyond my limited knowledge.

[Green Thumb]

There are several points I'd like to discuss in your argument, but I'm going to do so by discussing the Texas dilemma directly, because it both sums up my thoughts and is one that I have personal experience of. I lived for a period in the backwoods part of Texas, went to high school in Austin Texas, and may have a fair bit of intimate knowledge concerning what a 'Aggie' is. I will admit I no longer live there, but instead live elsewhere in the continental united states.

Texas, in my opinion, would be one of the worst hit areas in the country. Partly because there is a MAMMAL problem, not just a rat problem, and partly because of the way flight works in actual disaster scenarios.

First off, evidence indicates that every mammal is a potential carrier for the rash. Hunting is prevalent in the central areas of Texas, and even outside of hunting season it continues on near certain towns I could name. That's one vector. Squirrels and Deer are an issue in and around every town and city, due to over hunting of predators back in the early to mid 1900's, and both commonly eat out of human trash.

Second your argument assumes that everyone with guns will simply hunker down and hold out, safe in their own homes. Issue becomes most of Texas is not as 'country' as they like to think they are. Most of the homes are not sustainable in a disaster, and many of them are cheap suburban construction. Food will become an issue quickly since farming is a secondary activity compared to Ranching, mostly cattle (which again, see point 1). Without food or adequate shelter, people will have to search a increasingly contaminated landscape for food. As you pointed out, many of them are armed, and desperate.

Which brings us to the last point about Texas: Too many people are already there.  Texas has some great planes and some amazing views, but it's also filled with people. When desperation sets in, you'll have a wave of refugees spreading outward, triggering other refugees and contaminating the state. They are armed, meaning that it will desperate people vs. desperate people. People will turn, but in Texas it'd be troll season all year round. What you have is a giant mess, with few 'good' natural barriers to prevent the infection from spreading.

That is why I think that Texas, and to a certain extend the rest of the states, would not fair as well under this scenario.

I see your point, but I'd put the survival rate a bit higher. I've lived in enough places in America to know that a few of them would shut down it's borders and kill anyone who tried to enter, preventing easy spreading of the disease. Now, rats could be an issue in the major cities, but many of the cities I've been to had little to no rat problems. I'd say that many of the northern regions would be relatively okay, while only a few southern regions would survive. I could see Texas surviving if only because of their insane mentality when it comes to outside threats, which is to cut itself off as completely as possible. I agree with you, though, that our refusal to visit a doctor might work against us, but it could be an advantage, since sick people would be more likely to lock themselves up than rush to the doctor and spread their disease to everyone they met. The safest place in America would probably be Alaska or Hawaii, though, considering how remote they both are.

[BrainBlow]

To be fair to Texas, it's a really BIG state. Maps are kinda misleading, but Texas is basically bigger than France.
But no, I don't think many would be able to survive there since there's no real winters to speak of.

I honestly can't understand what you're trying to say? And don't make this a political debate, that's not what we're here for.

Pretty sure he's talking about how American politics is corrupt to the core today. I'd consider it a jest more than anything.

[noako]

I have been following this thread specifically because I am afraid there's going to be a political debate. They never end well.
I'm not giving any warnings but I'm keeping a keen eye whenever I see this thread being updated. Keep that in mind.

About this issue itself... I have no idea! The more people there is the worse the situation is going to get - every capital except Reykjavik is destroyed in SSSS. I'm of course there's some surviving communities, cities as strongholds but for the whole nation... No way.

[Sadoka]

Since we've done so well on mapping geography, what kind of genetics or traits would help someone survive?  The overall population is definitely worn down by the rash, but would certain kinds of people be more immune? 

For instance, the common cold and other Western illnesses are just minor issues for Europeans, but wreak havoc on Native American populations.
Also, is there some similar disease that would help provide immunity?  (i.e. cowpox and smallpox, different strains of diseases)

[Hrollo]

Haverberg > adding that.


We need more maps!

[Green Thumb]

We need more maps!

As in maps collating what we have discussed above, or maps of specific locations?
I could whip up the former tonight if you want, after I get done with work.

[Hrollo]

Either is good! I'll try to have my hand at some local maps myself, if I can find the time.

[ruth]

Stand Still, Stay Silent by ruthszulc, on Flickr

here's a little project of mine looking at what survivor communities outside the known world might look like! of course, everyone else's "known world" is going to be different if they haven't made contact. canada hasn't fared as well as iceland, and the largest community in the otherwise safe island of newfoundland—st. john's—fell early to the rash. isolation has been cold and lonely for its survivors, who aren't quite as keen on cleansing as the swedes, but nevertheless by year 90 there are a few projects to expand into the boundaries of the silent world. and the legacy of france lives on with its tiny colonial province.

i've updated this map a little bit since i posted it the first time around, adding hydroelectric plants, an iron mine, and even an offshore oil rig!

by year 90, newfoundland is also likely to have resurrected the old decommissioned newfoundland railway. fortunately for them, several towns in the surviving area of newfoundland, including corner brook and port-aux-basques, have some of the remaining cars, and with iron from fermont and plentiful timber, laying down the tracks on the newfoundland t'railway wouldn't be difficult.

in other news, right now i'm working on a little map of the surviving scottish community, named new shetland after the islands that they left for the safety of the nordic countries. even with a population of only a few hundred, they would likely be valued, especially by the danes, for their continued use of english and ability, subsequently, to access and translate a great deal of world knowledge.

[Fimbulvarg]

i've updated this map a little bit since i posted it the first time around, adding hydroelectric plants, an iron mine, and even an offshore oil rig!

by year 90, newfoundland is also likely to have resurrected the old decommissioned newfoundland railway. fortunately for them, several towns in the surviving area of newfoundland, including corner brook and port-aux-basques, have some of the remaining cars, and with iron from fermont and plentiful timber, laying down the tracks on the newfoundland t'railway wouldn't be difficult.

in other news, right now i'm working on a little map of the surviving scottish community, named new shetland after the islands that they left for the safety of the nordic countries. even with a population of only a few hundred, they would likely be valued, especially by the danes, for their continued use of english and ability, subsequently, to access and translate a great deal of world knowledge.

Out of interest, do you envision that the Newfoundlanders speak french (since it says France on the map)?

[ruth]

Out of interest, do you envision that the Newfoundlanders speak french (since it says France on the map)?

ahh, no. the newfies speak english! it's the small islands of st.-pierre-et-miquelon, on the south coast of newfoundland, that are an overseas collectivity of france. having become isolated from the metropole, i imagine that they will try to maintain the customs of the old republic, as they have no way of knowing if anything at all survives across the atlantic.

[Gwyrion]

There are several points I'd like to discuss in your argument, but I'm going to do so by discussing the Texas dilemma directly, because it both sums up my thoughts and is one that I have personal experience of. I lived for a period in the backwoods part of Texas, went to high school in Austin Texas, and may have a fair bit of intimate knowledge concerning what a 'Aggie' is. I will admit I no longer live there, but instead live elsewhere in the continental united states.

Texas, in my opinion, would be one of the worst hit areas in the country. Partly because there is a MAMMAL problem, not just a rat problem, and partly because of the way flight works in actual disaster scenarios.

First off, evidence indicates that every mammal is a potential carrier for the rash. Hunting is prevalent in the central areas of Texas, and even outside of hunting season it continues on near certain towns I could name. That's one vector. Squirrels and Deer are an issue in and around every town and city, due to over hunting of predators back in the early to mid 1900's, and both commonly eat out of human trash.

Second your argument assumes that everyone with guns will simply hunker down and hold out, safe in their own homes. Issue becomes most of Texas is not as 'country' as they like to think they are. Most of the homes are not sustainable in a disaster, and many of them are cheap suburban construction. Food will become an issue quickly since farming is a secondary activity compared to Ranching, mostly cattle (which again, see point 1). Without food or adequate shelter, people will have to search a increasingly contaminated landscape for food. As you pointed out, many of them are armed, and desperate.

Which brings us to the last point about Texas: Too many people are already there.  Texas has some great planes and some amazing views, but it's also filled with people. When desperation sets in, you'll have a wave of refugees spreading outward, triggering other refugees and contaminating the state. They are armed, meaning that it will desperate people vs. desperate people. People will turn, but in Texas it'd be troll season all year round. What you have is a giant mess, with few 'good' natural barriers to prevent the infection from spreading.

That is why I think that Texas, and to a certain extend the rest of the states, would not fair as well under this scenario.

I can see that, and I honestly didn't think about all the cattle and deer that would be infected. I still think they'd stand a fair chance, both because of the sheer enormity of the state to the paranoid tendencies of the people (I knew several that stockpiled food and water constantly), but the popularity of ranching and hunting would definitely make it a huge problem. Especially when the trolls started forming, and used all of those cattle to grow. Where I lived, though, it was fairly desert like, and deer were not common. There are greener areas in Texas, but there's some surprisingly dry places too.

[Gwyrion]

I have been following this thread specifically because I am afraid there's going to be a political debate. They never end well.
I'm not giving any warnings but I'm keeping a keen eye whenever I see this thread being updated. Keep that in mind.

About this issue itself... I have no idea! The more people there is the worse the situation is going to get - every capital except Reykjavik is destroyed in SSSS. I'm of course there's some surviving communities, cities as strongholds but for the whole nation... No way.

Thanks for keeping an eye out! And yeah, there's no way the whole nation would survive, most of the places with a moderate climate (I.E. almost everywhere) would be decimated; from both the abundant animals and general relaxed nature of the people who live there. I'd say if you wanted to survive run to Hawaii, they'd shut off their borders pretty quick and they're far enough away that the infection shouldn't reach them by air.