Game Theory and Why You Must Stay at Home?

Why should you stay at home?

We are, nevertheless, still hung by a thread. We have to pay our employees, our rent, and stuff like that at the end of this month. All tax payment procedures must be completed at the end of this quarter.

Should the market remain this gloomy, our company's model will sooner or later collapse.

The economy, society, and even my dog are dismal. And the bad thing is that we can't help but accept this, and "pray" for a brighter future. In the past, our ancestors were even worse vulnerable, which might best explain their holly beliefs.

Vietnam is a paradise during these dog days. That's what I know for sure.

We still haven't been as torn down as either the US or Europe. Our government is quick-witted, health services are hardly expensive, and we're not "democratic enough" to get the government to servant us. It's not to mention that we're not too forlorn to have burned any 5G station.

Since our government is humane enough to neither abuse power or violently oppress citizens as what's going in the Philippines and India, which have, even not during this time, all too often practiced these.

Vietnam is, as always, neutral. Our efforts, however, can become destitute at any point, once things have been carried away.

Which is "within reach," for we're, for the most part, preoccupied with the game theory.

Flashback to the prisoner mentioned above dilemma, which option would you take? Hypocrites (seriously) assert that they would clam up because of brotherhood or other shit. By the book, several proven statistical models, we would ALWAYS pass the buck to our fellow inmates since it DOWNPLAYS THE RISKS we might gamble.

Once we've passed it on to our "brothers," whether he does the same or remains close-mouthed, we would anyway suffer from shorter imprisonment. The less risky this seems, the more you have to duck the other, as he is, in all likelihood, about to disclaim and bend you instead.

Still, both being selfish would much lessen the joint payoff.

It also applies to this quarantine period.

Should everyone stay at home, all would sooner or later suffer from economic hardships, depression, and a bunch of other humdrum things.

Some are, nevertheless, thinking that since others are at home, they can either go out for a walk, buy dog pate as he's refusing to eat his food, get to their partners' doors and lovingly hug so that they'll not crave the feeling of love, or to curb their appetite for they've had enough of neighboring restaurants' dishes. Their choices, without recourse, have an advantage over other "coercive homebodies."

Furtive ones, accordingly, will be more beneficial than other transparent counterparts.

That said, such selfish individual decisions would run the entire society into grave troubles.

(Going out will become less tempting should the government issue more severe restrictions and dissidents to these misbehaviors mount).

"Flattening the curve", as aforementioned, would both prolong the outbreak and be as much fruitless if slovenly addressed. Regardless of whatever we do, if the peak breaches the tipping point - the endurance capacity of the health systems, this civilization will, to all appearances, miserably collapse.

When you still are enjoying autonomy, stay at home.

Or we'll whack you, literally.

Note:

Flattening the curve: using political measures such as social isolation to reduce pressure on the health system, but will prolong the epidemic. The plague graph will be purple, instead of orange.

Ourworldindata is constantly updating the graph of flattening the curve and there is a version that shows that the top of the purple portion is beyond the health system's tolerance. However, this page has now deleted this part of the graph, below is the old version: