Looking at the situation from a mathematical perspective it is immediately apparent that in a decision-space the virus has the upper hand in that it is not limited in the number of choices it has, but at the society level we have imposed numerous limitations on our choices, mostly irrational. In other words, no Nash equilibrium and the virus has the better of it
Looking at the situation from a mathematical perspective it is immediately apparent that in a decision-space the virus has the upper hand in that it is not limited in the number of choices it has, but at the society level we have imposed numerous limitations on our choices, mostly irrational. In other words, no Nash equilibrium and the virus has the better of it
It seems like we're being fed "spreadsheet advice," where decisions are made based on responses from large focus groups, and then the numbers are crunched on a nationwide scale. My guess is that more people are willing to get one booster per year, and less people are willing to get 2-3 boosters per year. The assumptions for different scenarios are run through a spreadsheet, and it is determined that there is less strain on hospitals if more people opt to get only one shot annually. The advice makes sense on a macro level, but may not be optimal protection on the individual level.
I want advice that's optimal protection for me, not advice that's geared at encouraging the masses to behave in a way that creates the most socially-optimal solution. I understand reducing strain on hospitals is important, but why can't we be told both - how to protect hospitals and how to protect ourselves?
Am feeling better, thank you! It's nice to be back home, be it ever so humble. Good points you make above. I agree with them and experience frustration too. Our pandemic strategies have wobbled from close to optimal all the way over to self defeating. Yet no one is really to blame and I doubt any society our size could have done any better if that's any consolation!
Looking at the situation from a mathematical perspective it is immediately apparent that in a decision-space the virus has the upper hand in that it is not limited in the number of choices it has, but at the society level we have imposed numerous limitations on our choices, mostly irrational. In other words, no Nash equilibrium and the virus has the better of it
Very well said, Michael.
It seems like we're being fed "spreadsheet advice," where decisions are made based on responses from large focus groups, and then the numbers are crunched on a nationwide scale. My guess is that more people are willing to get one booster per year, and less people are willing to get 2-3 boosters per year. The assumptions for different scenarios are run through a spreadsheet, and it is determined that there is less strain on hospitals if more people opt to get only one shot annually. The advice makes sense on a macro level, but may not be optimal protection on the individual level.
I want advice that's optimal protection for me, not advice that's geared at encouraging the masses to behave in a way that creates the most socially-optimal solution. I understand reducing strain on hospitals is important, but why can't we be told both - how to protect hospitals and how to protect ourselves?
I hope you're feeling better! 🌟
As someone living with MS, I inject myself weekly. I would do the same with COVID if it meant protecting the myself and the collective.
Am feeling better, thank you! It's nice to be back home, be it ever so humble. Good points you make above. I agree with them and experience frustration too. Our pandemic strategies have wobbled from close to optimal all the way over to self defeating. Yet no one is really to blame and I doubt any society our size could have done any better if that's any consolation!