I thought that the movie was a good example of the protocol for a real epidemic occurrence. It was realistic in the representation of transmission of the disease, question asking from the scientists, problems occurred during the tracking of the disease, and the problem solving/ protocol of what to do in these situations. The movie did a good job showing the transmission and how easy it is to spread disease among people, for example how a man who had the disease went to a movie theater and infected all of the people there, causing for them to become sick. The questions asked by the scientists allowed for them to find the host and then later find an antiserum for the disease. In the movie, many problems occurred during the process of finding the host, antiserum, as well as a way to produce the antiserum. …show more content…
Finally, this movie showed a realistic approach to how problems such as this disease is dealt with, between authorities and the effects of those. In this movie the idea of bombing the whole city was well liked among authorities and planned to be used twice. Although the movie had many realistic points, it also had some unrealistic parts. One prime example of an unrealistic moment in this movie was the short time it took to produce the antiserum and delivery to all the people. In real life circumstances, the antiserum wouldn’t have been made so quickly and would have slowed their plan down. In the end, the movie had many realistic components giving us a real-life example of an outbreak and how it is controlled along with few unrealistic components as