Worse than zombies, part 1 examined one of two implications of the phrase "it could be worse; there could be zombies." It garnered a lot of attention, a slew of good answers and got closed in about 13 hours flat. Given it's closure and the speed with which it happened is it appropriate to even ask the second half of the question given that it is probably going to be open to the same general issues?
Part 2 would test the second implication; "If there are zombies the situation is as bad as it can get. Except by adding more zombies of course." in the same context as part 1.
Do note that that was the reception after Sandboxing the question for some time.