Most definitely! :)

And I agree with what appears to be the author's thesis, which is that belief in vampires most likely arose from three facts:

1) Humans assign the property of being alive/animate to *everything* and

2) the activities associated with dead bodies (swellings, color changes, apparent hair/nail growth, etc) tend to support the "fact" of the dead still retaining some sort of like,

3) the initial victims of contagious disease tend to infect close associates before dying, leading to said associates sickening and dying from "attacks by the angry undead."

What interested me most about #3 was that these "attacks" came from the original victim was likely reinforced by the fact that burning the "undead" (before the invention of gas-fired crematoriums) was a difficult and very expensive proposition. By the time this expense seemed advisable, the contagion would have run its course, so when 0this ultimate step was taken, the lack of further deaths "proved" that the undead was their cause . . . which was actually TRUE, just not in the way the society assumed.

NOTE: The book dates from long before CSI-type police-procedurals, so the author goes to very painstaking lengths to explain basic medical facts behind such matters, possibly making the book a bit tedious for modern readers.