Quote:
And why think that there is a Cure?
Instead of a population of people who are Naturally Immune to the disease.
Or whose; who have developed immunity by survived the disease.
This would appear to be a more logical assumption.

Many cures are created based upon antibody reaction even now.
Being able to artificially stimulate the antibodies to react strongly to a threat without having to "learn" the threat first is a definite way to treat an illness, especially useful if the person usually dies before they could gain antibodies that were "educated" enough to try to oppose the disease.
Its still iffy but depending on the disease, one could go from less than .01% chance of survival to 10, 20, or 30% survival.
With a dedicated team in a lab, that chance could eventually rise even higher.

The issue here is that the human body is much better at "testing" cures over a large population than a lab of even hundreds of people could hope to match.
Though it would be horribly callous to use humans in such a way, even our own United States did so up until the early 70s upon those who had absolutely no clue that their country would enact upon them some of the the same horrors that the Jews experienced in the concentration camps.

Back to the film, though...
So in the end, seeking a "cure" among the survivors is medically sound.
But the ethics of what they did (rounding them up and ignoring them until they all died) are certainly in doubt.
The survivors have every right to be angry and I'll probably be rooting for them in this film unless its obvious that they regressed below the level of being human entirely.

++++++++++++++++++
Skel: "Ever seen a drunk Lich before?"
Nort: "An drunken undead wizard? How's he get drunk?"
Skel: "It ain't friggin easy, le'me tellya.
Now pass me another beer or spend the rest of your life as a frog!"