This idea is based on the Edgar Allen Poe story ‘The Masque of Red Death’.
…and in the end they all fall victim to the red death.
So the question is would you:
A] Hide-out in the luxuries of the castle.
B] Make a run for it, escape the lands.
C] Stay put and die in your home.
Make a run for it.
D] Live.
Oh sure take the one answer that was not permitted. That is so you dirt 
BMake a run for it.
Hiding is always a bad idea and staying put to face death is also bad. Escape to survive
I believe the more you Run, the faster you will Fall.
lol you jacked that from pirates of the carribean 3.
“we must fight… to run away”
On a physical level that is true if you actually ran, I would use a vehicle.
Ive a pretty good constitution.
Id prob sit in bed with a lemsip a sick bucket and a few plotless “Man films” to keep my adrenaline up. I’m sure it would pass in a few days. Hopefull Id contract it over the weekend so I could go back to work on monday.
I would think a large part of the civilized world would get wiped out depending upon their dependence on antiseptics, antibiotics and poor eating habits. Those that depend upon pahrmecueticals would be more susceptable to any new plague. Their bodies could not make antibodies etc. fast enough having had that stifled by lack of use. In such a case the less outside protection could be more protection because you allow your body to use its own natural strong defenses. i would think that would be the case at any rate.
Good point. Scrap the lemsip then Ill just have a carton of freshly squeezed orange juice
Whichever one would increase my chances of survival more. As the story says that those who stayed in their homes and fortresses died, it would seem that the only choice you have presented that we don’t already know would result in death is B.
I’d run for it, too - fuck being a sitting duck for the germs!
For something i feel compelled to say that we are not being attacked by “A Big Nothing” like in “The never ending story”
This what you mean by a grey plague??
[b]
Whichever one would increase my chances of survival more. As the story says that those who stayed in their homes and fortresses died, it would seem that the only choice you have presented that we don’t already know would result in death is B.
I’d run for it, too - fuck being a sitting duck for the germs![/b]
Damn chickens 
A & C are guaranteed deaths, B is to take a chance, but with no guarantee of safety. With A you can end your days with luxuries and indulgence. B is to struggle for freedom. C is to simply accept death. Maybe I wasn’t so clear originally 
notlob. quite close to here actually. but no the grey plague is the twentieth century (&21st so far) plague of the grey life, the mundane and monotonous routine of existence.
You’re essentially a shit-talking loud-mouth aren’t you? A large part of the world would be wiped out not because of dependence on drugs, but because only a small portion of people happen to have immune system’s which can sustain the onslaught of disease.
The spanish flu, an avian flu, was a killer of the strong and young, the better your immune system was, the worse ride you were in for. It swept through people like a fire sweeping through a forest of hay, it killed its way through hosts, and it wasn’t even all that potent of a virus considering the possibilities at large (enough that it’ll rape any population though).
So in that case the people with the weaker immune systems would live more often than not. Avian flu is the biggest threat to world health (at least if it mutates and has a kill-rate of plenty of seen viruses, though these are admittedly unknowable variables).
Again the people who got vaccines would live more often in that situation.
The reason life-spans have increased double in the last 100 years, IS FUCKING MEDICINE, thats the fucking reason that children aren’t swept up in plauges and die routinely by flus, and upper chest infections.
a plauge would wipe through a population killing hundreds of thousands if not millions upon millions, ,it wouldn’t be based on your fucking absurd criteria but the nature of the virus, plenty of times people taking the antibiotics, or people with weaker immune systems can be the ones surviving, even if people with strong immune system’s live more often, the people with strong immune systems, who take medication thats shown to be effective, will survive more often.
Babies immune systems are weak, there mother’s immune systems protect them while they are inside, the reason we don’t have massive amounts of babies dying is modern medicine.
you have dumb ideas about antibiotics. most people aren’t antibiotic junkies.
Not to mention to those who do get sick, which is possible even with a strong immune system, chronic infections can create problems that these people deal with later in life, having pneumonia or a chest infection or whatever, most people can survive that if they eat right and are healthy anyway, (well depending on the infection) but the toll it takes on your own body, to let yourself sit there infected for days and days on-end, is hugely damaging in and of itself.
As bad as antibiotics are, its better than sitting there with a brutal infection even if your body can eventually fight it off.
‘dependence for antibiotics’ is a fucking stupid term. almost no one but the chronically ill are ‘dependent’ upon them, and when they’re used, their to prevent chronic infections that our bodies usually can’t fight off, or infections which are risky to attempt to fight off.
Theres plenty of medicine that boosts the immune system like vaccinations as well.
just like more people survive bacterial meningitis outbreaks without medicine/medical treatment? lol.