2 ms·

That's now how game theory works, the pandemic is not another player who is 2nd guessing the government or vice versa. Instead governments are weighing the pro

That's now how game theory works, the pandemic is not another player who is 2nd guessing the government or vice versa. Instead governments are weighing the probabilities (think a probability tree, according to your scenarios) you kind of point to this in your conclusion.

tomp 7y ago
The point of Game Theory is to analyze the situation according to the actual payoff function for each player, not according to the socially (Pareto) optimal outcome. The 2 players here are the government, and the voters. The socially optimal scenario is action REGARDLESS of whether it's a pandemic or not (in a hyper-globalized world it would hurt a bit, but only the first time, after that the tourists, supply chains, etc. would adapt) but the voters penalize that outcome (they see action with no pandemic as overreaction not as successful prevention) so governments avoid it.
- AstralStorm 7y ago
  This is the problem of simplistic analysis. The question here is which actions of what severity, not simple act or not. There are many ways to handle this, from maximum quarantine and cancellation of medical appointments, through closing mass gatherings (e.g. schools), rationing, enforced testing, closing public transportation, controlling private transportation, closing airports, sea and river ports, mandatory sampling for tests etc. Each choice comes with a value for disruption and voter groups it will affect, and value for monetary cost. Game theory is not too helpful here, as disruption does not directly affect discontent and definitely not your chances of getting elected. These are much more complex decisions with many more actions between here and then.
- Rastonbury 7y ago
  It still isn't game theory, the government acts first, the voters act after after observing the outcome. There is no subsequent game. It is simply up to the government to estimate probability and expected payoff. Optimal action for government is to take the least amount of action to prevent the voters from thinking its a pandemic. It isn't a game theory scenario, there are no nash equilibria.

tomp 7y ago

The point of Game Theory is to analyze the situation according to the actual payoff function for each player, not according to the socially (Pareto) optimal outcome. The 2 players here are the government, and the voters. The socially optimal scenario is action REGARDLESS of whether it's a pandemic or not (in a hyper-globalized world it would hurt a bit, but only the first time, after that the tourists, supply chains, etc. would adapt) but the voters penalize that outcome (they see action with no pandemic as overreaction not as successful prevention) so governments avoid it.

AstralStorm 7y ago
This is the problem of simplistic analysis. The question here is which actions of what severity, not simple act or not. There are many ways to handle this, from maximum quarantine and cancellation of medical appointments, through closing mass gatherings (e.g. schools), rationing, enforced testing, closing public transportation, controlling private transportation, closing airports, sea and river ports, mandatory sampling for tests etc. Each choice comes with a value for disruption and voter groups it will affect, and value for monetary cost. Game theory is not too helpful here, as disruption does not directly affect discontent and definitely not your chances of getting elected. These are much more complex decisions with many more actions between here and then.
Rastonbury 7y ago
It still isn't game theory, the government acts first, the voters act after after observing the outcome. There is no subsequent game. It is simply up to the government to estimate probability and expected payoff. Optimal action for government is to take the least amount of action to prevent the voters from thinking its a pandemic. It isn't a game theory scenario, there are no nash equilibria.