Discussing the show and past episodes is fine. Do not put things that have happened in the TV series in spoilers. However, don't spoil things from the books that may happen in future episodes. Put book spoilers in spoiler tags with a CLEAR WARNING that it is from the book.
That's not an explanation, that's speculation. Theres no evidence in the show that suggests that zombie bites carry the disease this way. It's not something that can really be proven on the show anyways unless a scientist figure simply declares it the case, or someone does tests on walker saliva or something.
The Walking Dead has explicitly shown us that if you get bit by a walker, you will die even if the injury sustained is not lethal (unless you can cut the injured limb before the infection spreads). This is a fact of the show.
Now, like two posters have explained to you on this page, and contrary to your earlier statement that "there really isn't a feasible way to explain it at this point that falls within the realm plausibility", there very much are possible explanations available for walker bites leading to death. The show has not provided us with the exact explanation, but that certainly doesn't mean that the "logic" of the show is being broken in any way, or that it's inconsistent. There isn't an ounce of inconsistency here - it's simply a fact of the show for which we do not have a definitive scientific explanation yet, but for which plenty of possible explanations that do not contradict the rest of the show can be suggested.
There IS inconsistency though. The beginning of the show set up the framework that to be bitten was to kill you and turn you into a walker, presumably because it transferred the infection (like all traditional zombie movies). Then season 2 threw that out the window and clarified people were already infected. But bites still carry the initial, now unclarified assumption from the start that they transfer the infection. You can obviously assume and speculate why it happens and fill in the gap for yourself, but the story has yet to do it. Like you said in your last sentence, you have to come up with possible explanations that do not contradict the rest (season 1) of the show, because as it stands unexplained it creates a contradiction.
No, you are again confusing something being unexplained with there being a contradiction. There is absolutely no contradiction or inconsistency here. Your assertion that "bites still carry the initial, now unclarified assumption from the start that they transfer the infection" is groundless. The show has established that, until shown otherwise, everyone is infected by something which leads one to turn into a walker after dieing. The show has established that, until shown otherwise, getting bit by a zombie will result in one's death (unless you cut the limb fast enough). Period. There is no contradiction between the two, and there are plenty of possible explanations for walker bites leading to one's death.
Also, you seem to be confusing the characters' perception of their environment with how the producers are setting up the walking dead world. We, as viewers, are learning about the infection through the characters' eyes and experience. They initially thought that the reason people turned was entirely that they had gotten bit, because of the empirical evidence available to them (people getting bit and, as a result, dieing then turning). They later uncovered that this wasn't the case - everyone is already infected and people simply turn after dieing. Again, no inconsistency: the characters simply uncovered new evidence (people turning without getting bitten) that led them to replace their previous assessment of how people turning into walkers worked.
Bites being fatal and the infection being present regardless when you die are both established facts, but the point I'm making is that these facts were introduced at different times. Because we're limited to what the characters know, the difference in time is what is most important to note. Before they knew that you could turn without being bitten, the characters assumed the infection was transferred through the bite, and it became the established fact before they learned they were already infected to begin with. But the fatality of the bites were never explored past that -- for 2 seasons even. And then that just leads back to my original post.
You just repeated what I wrote to you. The point is that there are currently no contradictions in the show. Do you agree on that, yes or no?
Not necessarily, I emphasized the difference time makes. I agree with mostly everything, but I still insist that having a season where characters believe the infection is transferred through a bite (which becomes the established fact), and then changing that established fact when the characters learn they were already infected, but not clarifying what the bite does, creates a contradiction, because you're stuck assuming the bite functions the same way the characters assumed it did in season 1.
edit: Which is my main point, the characters both changed their assessment of how turning works yet it still remains the same as it did before they changed it.
Exactly, they believe and they believed wrong. There is no contradiction, it was just a wrong assumption. Contradiction would have existed if people were dying from natural causes but not turning. None of that happened. How do you want them to realistically clarify what they bite does in that setting? I'd cal BS if Rick came out and said that, given his studies on zombies, he can conclude that the bite introduces enzymes to the body that react with the virus to produce death through cardiac arrest The show never established the fact that bites infect and killed you. It may have lead to believe that and u made an assumption, but that's it. No-one changed facts half way through the show lol. Now I just assume that the bite itself from a rotting zombie is introducing so many infections/bacteria that your boddy can't fight it and dies, unless the limb is cut off..
Anyway I originally came here to see what ppl think about Carl, dat 360 personality change is almost as if writers were reading TL forums:D
Infection through biting is the assumption that everyone makes. It's the single most cliche mechanic of traditional zombie lore that a zombie transmits the infection through biting, and TWD copied that cliche down to the punctuation. I'd have to go through season 1 again to find if they specifically say "bites transfer infection," but it's obvious they were trying to play that up to make the twist more dramatic when they later reveal everyone was already infected.
What's funny is that this ENTIRE conversation across several pages started because a walker that freshly turned just hours ago had bitten and killed someone, which would pretty much kill the concept of the cause of death being from bacteria in a walker's mouth. So the only assumption we're now left with is that it somehow interacts with the virus, but at that point the show can say it works any way they want. They just haven't said it yet.
What is your point? Not explaining doesn't mean its unreasonable not does it mean there is a contradiction. Hydrogen cyanide (depending on the amount) can kill a person within minutes to an hour. Depending on the incubation period of the virus, it might very well that a person is able to be infectious to other people shortly after turning.
You carry the virus in a state that doesn't seem to harm and/or modify you or your behaviour as long as you are alive. That is what we know. In addition we know, that the bite of a walker and/or turned person is deadly. I believe we also know that the period it can take until you die does vary and I believe they are decreasing this period for the action element of the show. It was explained that there were people dying and it took them hours to turn or minutes, completely different from one to another. Seemingly it can also be that the bite of a turned person does kill. As you said, its not explained why or how, but that doesn't mean its not logical.
I have no master in medicine unfortunately, but with the power of google there are virus infections that have an incubation period of 6 hours to ++++ , so while those exist, why cannot incubation period be a lot faster with the virus that turns you and the results of the infection be a lot heavier.
It's not that it's unreasonable, it's that there is nothing to reason with. It's a 180 from what everyone originally thought and it was just left where it stood. The only thing we know is that bite --> fatal. Everything between is unknown. It could be the infection causing it, but it's just speculation beyond that. The original point is that you don't need to speculate to know that a walker would most definitely carry dangerous bacteria in it's mouth, and that regardless of whether or not the virus was killing them, the bacteria could definitely be fatal. But it's not bacteria at this point so theres no evidence from the show to go beyond that.
On October 24 2013 21:45 kwizach wrote: [quote] The Walking Dead has explicitly shown us that if you get bit by a walker, you will die even if the injury sustained is not lethal (unless you can cut the injured limb before the infection spreads). This is a fact of the show.
Now, like two posters have explained to you on this page, and contrary to your earlier statement that "there really isn't a feasible way to explain it at this point that falls within the realm plausibility", there very much are possible explanations available for walker bites leading to death. The show has not provided us with the exact explanation, but that certainly doesn't mean that the "logic" of the show is being broken in any way, or that it's inconsistent. There isn't an ounce of inconsistency here - it's simply a fact of the show for which we do not have a definitive scientific explanation yet, but for which plenty of possible explanations that do not contradict the rest of the show can be suggested.
There IS inconsistency though. The beginning of the show set up the framework that to be bitten was to kill you and turn you into a walker, presumably because it transferred the infection (like all traditional zombie movies). Then season 2 threw that out the window and clarified people were already infected. But bites still carry the initial, now unclarified assumption from the start that they transfer the infection. You can obviously assume and speculate why it happens and fill in the gap for yourself, but the story has yet to do it. Like you said in your last sentence, you have to come up with possible explanations that do not contradict the rest (season 1) of the show, because as it stands unexplained it creates a contradiction.
No, you are again confusing something being unexplained with there being a contradiction. There is absolutely no contradiction or inconsistency here. Your assertion that "bites still carry the initial, now unclarified assumption from the start that they transfer the infection" is groundless. The show has established that, until shown otherwise, everyone is infected by something which leads one to turn into a walker after dieing. The show has established that, until shown otherwise, getting bit by a zombie will result in one's death (unless you cut the limb fast enough). Period. There is no contradiction between the two, and there are plenty of possible explanations for walker bites leading to one's death.
Also, you seem to be confusing the characters' perception of their environment with how the producers are setting up the walking dead world. We, as viewers, are learning about the infection through the characters' eyes and experience. They initially thought that the reason people turned was entirely that they had gotten bit, because of the empirical evidence available to them (people getting bit and, as a result, dieing then turning). They later uncovered that this wasn't the case - everyone is already infected and people simply turn after dieing. Again, no inconsistency: the characters simply uncovered new evidence (people turning without getting bitten) that led them to replace their previous assessment of how people turning into walkers worked.
Bites being fatal and the infection being present regardless when you die are both established facts, but the point I'm making is that these facts were introduced at different times. Because we're limited to what the characters know, the difference in time is what is most important to note. Before they knew that you could turn without being bitten, the characters assumed the infection was transferred through the bite, and it became the established fact before they learned they were already infected to begin with. But the fatality of the bites were never explored past that -- for 2 seasons even. And then that just leads back to my original post.
You just repeated what I wrote to you. The point is that there are currently no contradictions in the show. Do you agree on that, yes or no?
Not necessarily, I emphasized the difference time makes. I agree with mostly everything, but I still insist that having a season where characters believe the infection is transferred through a bite (which becomes the established fact), and then changing that established fact when the characters learn they were already infected, but not clarifying what the bite does, creates a contradiction, because you're stuck assuming the bite functions the same way the characters assumed it did in season 1.
edit: Which is my main point, the characters both changed their assessment of how turning works yet it still remains the same as it did before they changed it.
Exactly, they believe and they believed wrong. There is no contradiction, it was just a wrong assumption. Contradiction would have existed if people were dying from natural causes but not turning. None of that happened. How do you want them to realistically clarify what they bite does in that setting? I'd cal BS if Rick came out and said that, given his studies on zombies, he can conclude that the bite introduces enzymes to the body that react with the virus to produce death through cardiac arrest The show never established the fact that bites infect and killed you. It may have lead to believe that and u made an assumption, but that's it. No-one changed facts half way through the show lol. Now I just assume that the bite itself from a rotting zombie is introducing so many infections/bacteria that your boddy can't fight it and dies, unless the limb is cut off..
Anyway I originally came here to see what ppl think about Carl, dat 360 personality change is almost as if writers were reading TL forums:D
Infection through biting is the assumption that everyone makes. It's the single most cliche mechanic of traditional zombie lore that a zombie transmits the infection through biting, and TWD copied that cliche down to the punctuation. I'd have to go through season 1 again to find if they specifically say "bites transfer infection," but it's obvious they were trying to play that up to make the twist more dramatic when they later reveal everyone was already infected.
What's funny is that this ENTIRE conversation across several pages started because a walker that freshly turned just hours ago had bitten and killed someone, which would pretty much kill the concept of the cause of death being from bacteria in a walker's mouth. So the only assumption we're now left with is that it somehow interacts with the virus, but at that point the show can say it works any way they want. They just haven't said it yet.
What is your point? Not explaining doesn't mean its unreasonable not does it mean there is a contradiction. Hydrogen cyanide (depending on the amount) can kill a person within minutes to an hour. Depending on the incubation period of the virus, it might very well that a person is able to be infectious to other people shortly after turning.
You carry the virus in a state that doesn't seem to harm and/or modify you or your behaviour as long as you are alive. That is what we know. In addition we know, that the bite of a walker and/or turned person is deadly. I believe we also know that the period it can take until you die does vary and I believe they are decreasing this period for the action element of the show. It was explained that there were people dying and it took them hours to turn or minutes, completely different from one to another. Seemingly it can also be that the bite of a turned person does kill. As you said, its not explained why or how, but that doesn't mean its not logical.
I have no master in medicine unfortunately, but with the power of google there are virus infections that have an incubation period of 6 hours to ++++ , so while those exist, why cannot incubation period be a lot faster with the virus that turns you and the results of the infection be a lot heavier.
It's not that it's unreasonable, it's that there is nothing to reason with. It's a 180 from what everyone originally thought and it was just left where it stood. The only thing we know is that bite --> fatal. Everything between is unknown. It could be the infection causing it, but it's just speculation beyond that. The original point is that you don't need to speculate to know that a walker would most definitely carry dangerous bacteria in it's mouth, and that regardless of whether or not the virus was killing them, the bacteria could definitely be fatal. But it's not bacteria at this point so theres no evidence from the show to go beyond that.
You didn't see S3 E7? Walkers live off of vitamin D. They suck it out of life sources and the sun doesn't provide enough of it. Their deaths are because of vitamin D deficiency and then they turn. Honestly though I wouldn't invest too much thought into the why. The why seems like an answer that they aren't prepared to get because of how they're forced to live now.
On October 25 2013 04:12 iokke wrote: you don't need spoilers... burned alive?
The drag marks were all bloody, so likely they were killed in the cell and then burned outside.
Doubt it, considering how much blood was coming out of that kids ears/eyes just before he died. I see no reason why they would have been killed before they died naturally.
On October 25 2013 04:12 iokke wrote: you don't need spoilers... burned alive?
The drag marks were all bloody, so likely they were killed in the cell and then burned outside.
Doubt it, considering how much blood was coming out of that kids ears/eyes just before he died. I see no reason why they would have been killed before they died naturally.
Probably to detail the brutality of the murders and so Rick can give another "we don't kill the living" speech while humanity breaks down around him.
On October 23 2013 10:50 rd wrote: "Oh you want to kill your own father? Here you go."
Carol's priority is teaching the children how to fight and survive, and her intention in allowing Lizzie to kill her father. prevent her father from turning is to teach Lizzie to not listen to her emotions, but to act on instinct and stab her father so he doesn't turn and eat her. For a child in such a volatile state of emotion, this is a pretty important lesson. The parents' (apparently) want to shield their children from the harsh reality of their world, and Carol wants the children to understand and learn to survive within it.
Dude, it's her father. Has Lizzie even killed a regular walker yet? She was only just learning how to use a knife. Don't you think they should build up to that? I mean when Carl did it to Lori, it was kind of a huge deal.
"Oh you're too weak to kill your own father? Let me do it in front of your face then."
Carol wasn't doing it to do it in Lizzie's face. She didn't want Lizzie's father to turn, for the obvious reason that waiting too soon would be extremely dangerous. I don't think any rational person outside of the TWD universe would let a deceased body sit inside of the TWD universe for long, especially not with two children right next to it.
She couldn't have taken 15 seconds to escort them out of the room? Feels like the death of their dad should be enough of a "lesson" for these kids without Carol having to rub their face in it and then call them "weak" afterwards. Carol especially should know better after losing most her family members.
I think that's the point they are trying to make; she's seen too many people die (including her daughter) and the time for pussy footing around is over.
Before bashing, you should probably watch the series again. In the (I believe) second episode where Rick encounters the black guy and his son, it was explained that his wife got bit and the infection caused high fever resulting in death. I would even argue that they don't really die and turn fast. Have we had evidence of a bite killing and turning a person quickly?
From what I can tell, the person that gets bitten usually dies, because the zombie is still there and kills him/her. As we could see in the previous episode and the bite to the throat. The only person that got bit and survived was the dad of those 2 girls. He died, but we didn't see him turn, because Carol killed him before. As a matter of fact, it has been explained that people turn differently fast and from what I can tell, no bitten person died 5 minutes after the bite or anything like that. They simply got very sick from the infection. While you say its about rotten flesh, it could also be that the virus mutates after 'activation' upon death. There is no medical logic you could apply here, those are dead walking bodies.
I don't understand why anyone would try to argue with logic in a post apocalyptic zombie world. TWD actually sticks very well to its own logic and rules and I don't see people turning randomly into zombies after being bitten, but always being sick first / withering away due to high fever etc or severe bleeding.
Anyways, I enjoy it~
Damn, twice in a row I'm quoted out of context. It's not bashing. Did I say I didn't enjoy it? The concepts of an infection spreading through a bite and an infection existing regardless of the bite are mutually exclusive ideas. Why else would anyone have to speculate how people are dying from the bite? It's speculation over an unexplained inconsistency.
Just because it's a post apocalyptic zombie world, it doesn't mean it can't be logical. To say it can't is just a cop out. If it couldn't, then they'd have license to break every real world mechanic as we logically understand them in our own world. They could just remove gravity and make everyone jump and float off into space because "it's a zombie movie it doesn't have to be logical." If you really believe it can't be logical then you're missing the entire point of TWD which is trying to portray a realistic world with the fictional twist of a zombie outbreak.
And yes, the first season explained the fever and eventual death. But that doesn't explain why the bite causes the fever, it just gave the observation that the consequence of a bite was a fever and eventual death. Except the dad of the two girls and several others have died within (what appeared to be) less than an hour. He didn't have to turn, he just died. I never said it was the bacteria of the walkers' rotted flesh either (infact I didnt even try to explain it), I simply referenced the popular opinion (which you are quoting me out of context on) where it was generally believed that the bites were so dangerous because of bacteria, but that bacteria can't exist in someone who just died <1 hour ago. The problem isn't that bite killing people isn't realistic, it's that theres no "fictional" explanation in the TWD world, and the last "rational" explanation based on our real world doesn't work anymore (and it was sketchy to begin with). So now theres no explanation. It's just magic, thus the inconsistency. It doesn't even have to be logical, just explained...
There is a very easy and logical explanation and it's this: There are 2 stages of the virus - a latent stage and an active stage. Everyone has the virus in its latent stage and there are no symptoms with the latent virus. When you die you have no immune system so the virus takes over and becomes activated. When you are a walker and you have the activated version of the virus you can spread the activated version of the virus with your bite. This causes the infection and "fever" that will kill you and turn you into another walker with the activated virus.
Btw, just to enforce how plausible this explanation is, you should know that there are already diseases that work this way. For example, Tuberculosis. People with latent TB have no symptoms and are not contagious. When they get activated TB they become contagious and spread the disease through coughing and sneezing (or biting )
That's not an explanation, that's speculation. Theres no evidence in the show that suggests that zombie bites carry the disease this way. It's not something that can really be proven on the show anyways unless a scientist figure simply declares it the case, or someone does tests on walker saliva or something.
The Walking Dead has explicitly shown us that if you get bit by a walker, you will die even if the injury sustained is not lethal (unless you can cut the injured limb before the infection spreads). This is a fact of the show.
Now, like two posters have explained to you on this page, and contrary to your earlier statement that "there really isn't a feasible way to explain it at this point that falls within the realm plausibility", there very much are possible explanations available for walker bites leading to death. The show has not provided us with the exact explanation, but that certainly doesn't mean that the "logic" of the show is being broken in any way, or that it's inconsistent. There isn't an ounce of inconsistency here - it's simply a fact of the show for which we do not have a definitive scientific explanation yet, but for which plenty of possible explanations that do not contradict the rest of the show can be suggested.
There IS inconsistency though. The beginning of the show set up the framework that to be bitten was to kill you and turn you into a walker, presumably because it transferred the infection (like all traditional zombie movies). Then season 2 threw that out the window and clarified people were already infected. But bites still carry the initial, now unclarified assumption from the start that they transfer the infection. You can obviously assume and speculate why it happens and fill in the gap for yourself, but the story has yet to do it. Like you said in your last sentence, you have to come up with possible explanations that do not contradict the rest (season 1) of the show, because as it stands unexplained it creates a contradiction.
No, you are again confusing something being unexplained with there being a contradiction. There is absolutely no contradiction or inconsistency here. Your assertion that "bites still carry the initial, now unclarified assumption from the start that they transfer the infection" is groundless. The show has established that, until shown otherwise, everyone is infected by something which leads one to turn into a walker after dieing. The show has established that, until shown otherwise, getting bit by a zombie will result in one's death (unless you cut the limb fast enough). Period. There is no contradiction between the two, and there are plenty of possible explanations for walker bites leading to one's death.
Also, you seem to be confusing the characters' perception of their environment with how the producers are setting up the walking dead world. We, as viewers, are learning about the infection through the characters' eyes and experience. They initially thought that the reason people turned was entirely that they had gotten bit, because of the empirical evidence available to them (people getting bit and, as a result, dieing then turning). They later uncovered that this wasn't the case - everyone is already infected and people simply turn after dieing. Again, no inconsistency: the characters simply uncovered new evidence (people turning without getting bitten) that led them to replace their previous assessment of how people turning into walkers worked.
Bites being fatal and the infection being present regardless when you die are both established facts, but the point I'm making is that these facts were introduced at different times. Because we're limited to what the characters know, the difference in time is what is most important to note. Before they knew that you could turn without being bitten, the characters assumed the infection was transferred through the bite, and it became the established fact before they learned they were already infected to begin with. But the fatality of the bites were never explored past that -- for 2 seasons even. And then that just leads back to my original post.
You just repeated what I wrote to you. The point is that there are currently no contradictions in the show. Do you agree on that, yes or no?
Not necessarily, I emphasized the difference time makes. I agree with mostly everything, but I still insist that having a season where characters believe the infection is transferred through a bite (which becomes the established fact), and then changing that established fact when the characters learn they were already infected, but not clarifying what the bite does, creates a contradiction, because you're stuck assuming the bite functions the same way the characters assumed it did in season 1.
Again, there is no contradiction. Not clarifying how getting bitten leads to one dieing is not a contradiction. We're not stuck assuming anything, and neither are the characters. We - and they - used to think people only turned because they were bitten, now we - and they - know that people turn when they die, and that getting bitten leads to one dieing. Where the hell is the contradiction?!
On October 25 2013 03:03 rd wrote: edit: Which is my main point, the characters both changed their assessment of how turning works yet it still remains the same as it did before they changed it. The last sentence doesn't make much sense because it implies a contradiction, lol.
No, it doesn't make much sense because it has no connection to the reality of the show. The characters' assessment of how turning works does not "remain the same" as it originally was, as I just explained.
On October 23 2013 10:50 rd wrote: "Oh you want to kill your own father? Here you go."
Carol's priority is teaching the children how to fight and survive, and her intention in allowing Lizzie to kill her father. prevent her father from turning is to teach Lizzie to not listen to her emotions, but to act on instinct and stab her father so he doesn't turn and eat her. For a child in such a volatile state of emotion, this is a pretty important lesson. The parents' (apparently) want to shield their children from the harsh reality of their world, and Carol wants the children to understand and learn to survive within it.
Dude, it's her father. Has Lizzie even killed a regular walker yet? She was only just learning how to use a knife. Don't you think they should build up to that? I mean when Carl did it to Lori, it was kind of a huge deal.
"Oh you're too weak to kill your own father? Let me do it in front of your face then."
Carol wasn't doing it to do it in Lizzie's face. She didn't want Lizzie's father to turn, for the obvious reason that waiting too soon would be extremely dangerous. I don't think any rational person outside of the TWD universe would let a deceased body sit inside of the TWD universe for long, especially not with two children right next to it.
She couldn't have taken 15 seconds to escort them out of the room? Feels like the death of their dad should be enough of a "lesson" for these kids without Carol having to rub their face in it and then call them "weak" afterwards. Carol especially should know better after losing most her family members.
I don't know, maybe it's just me.
I completely agree with you. There's a difference between accepting the harsh reality of the world they live in and being the ones to stab their own father in the head when plenty of other people can do it. It's not like they're going to have to face their father again and need to be ready for it. Making sure dead friends don't turn is another matter entirely than stabbing their one and only father at that age.
I didn't expect Carol to be the one that killed Karen and David, but it makes sense since she wants to protect the two girls and everyone that isn't infected yet. Hopefully the next episode looks as good as the previews since we got two groups doing some runs. And lol @ Tyreese being immune since the writers have use of him still. There are a ton of zombies on him and they didn't go for the bite.
i dont care if it was unbelievable that was awesome. Tyreese going boss mode, hopefully he starts to get over his emotions because but a couple hand axes or hammer in that guys hands and hes a tank. Carol is a little bit away from being completely insane. And glen/daryl better not die.
Wtf carol! I had the army medic guy pegged as the killer. I haven't read the comics, but people said there was a serial killer in that and carol is clearly not a serial killer, but now she's a murderer that tyrese is going to have to kill over daryl's dead body!
The ending was great. Everyone's having to increasingly choose survival over morality and Carol has finally gotten their. It'll be interesting to see how that situation plays out.
I just hope they end up leaving the prison mid-season or so. Can't have the show stagnating too much in one spot again like with season 2.
Liked the episode, don't like Carol being the killer.
It was way more interesting when we thought someone sinister was inside the group, and I don't really care about any potential conflict between Carol and Tyreese.
40 minutes of "noezzz you're not goin in/out there", "I'm going in/out there" and "be strong it's gonna be alright" and then a few minutes decentness at the end.
On October 28 2013 15:12 Cel.erity wrote: Liked the episode, don't like Carol being the killer.
It was way more interesting when we thought someone sinister was inside the group, and I don't really care about any potential conflict between Carol and Tyreese.
I never really saw them as going for sinister route, mainly because the only murders were those that were potentially infected. It seemed more like someone who acted in secret out of fear for the rest of the group from the start imo.
I'm actually glad it was Carol, if it was the new army medic guy (D'Angello Barksdale!) or something then it wouldn't have carried much impact. The fact that a veteran character did it shows more development. Carol has gone from subordinate wife, to independent and cold-blooded in her adaptation to the circumstances.
There is still the mystery of who was feeding the zombies though. Probably the little girl, but who knows.
EPT
Honestly though I wouldn't invest too much thought into the why. The why seems like an answer that they aren't prepared to get because of how they're forced to live now. 
)
