RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 To mask, or not to mask, Alice and Bob’s dating dilemma
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2022.04.14.22273886
DO 10.1101/2022.04.14.22273886
A1 (Sam) Ma, Zhanshan
A1 Zhang, Ya-Ping
YR 2022
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/04/16/2022.04.14.22273886.abstract
AB Face masking in current COVID-19 pandemic seems to be a deceivingly simple decision-making problem due to its multifaceted nature. Questions arising from masking span biomedicine, epidemiology, physics, and human behaviors. While science has shown masks work generally, human behaviors (particularly under influences of politics) complicate the problem significantly given science generally assumes rationality and our minds are not always rational and/or honest. Minding minds, a legitimate concern, can also make masking legitimately confusing. To disentangle the potential confusions, particularly, the ramifications of irrationality and dishonesty, here we resort to evolutionary game theory. Specifically, we formulate and analyze the masking problem with a fictitious pair of young lovers, Alice and Bob, as a Sir Philip Sydney (SPS) evolutionary game, inspired by the handicap principle in evolutionary biology and cryptography figures in computer science. With the proposed ABD (Alice and Bob’s dating dilemma) as an asymmetric four-by-four strategic-form game, 16 strategic interactions were identified, and six of which may reach equilibriums with different characteristics such as separating, pooling, and polymorphic hybrid, being Nash, evolutionarily stable or neutrally stable. The six equilibrium types seem to mirror the diverse behaviors of mask believers, skeptics, converted, universal masking, voluntarily masking, coexisted and/or divided world of believers and skeptics. We suggest that the apparently simple ABD game is sufficiently general not only for studying masking policies for populations (via replicator dynamics), but also for investigating other complex decision-making problems with COVID-19 pandemic including lockdown vs. reopening, herd immunity vs. quarantines, and aggressive tracing vs. privacy protection.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementN/AAuthor DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesI confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesThis is a theoretical analysis, and only involves simulated data.