Skip to main content
The Actuary: The magazine of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries - return to the homepage Logo of The Actuary website
  • Search
  • Visit The Actuary Magazine on Facebook
  • Visit The Actuary Magazine on LinkedIn
  • Visit @TheActuaryMag on Twitter
Visit the website of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries Logo of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries

Main navigation

  • News
  • Features
    • General Features
    • Interviews
    • Students
    • Opinion
  • Topics
  • Knowledge
    • Business Skills
    • Careers
    • Events
    • Predictions by The Actuary
    • Whitepapers
    • Moody's - Climate Risk Insurers series
    • Webinars
    • Podcasts
  • Jobs
  • IFoA
    • CEO Comment
    • IFoA News
    • People & Social News
    • President Comment
  • Archive
Quick links:
  • Home
  • The Actuary Issues
  • December 2021
General Features

Game over for game theory and vaccinations

Open-access content Wednesday 1st December 2021
Authors
Ronald Meester

Game theory is no basis for decision-making when it comes to normative issues such as vaccination, says Ronald Meester

Game over for game theory and vaccinations

Servaas Houben published an article in the September issue of The Actuary (bit.ly/Act_VaxDilem) in which he applied game theory to the COVID-19 problem.

His conclusion was as follows: “This shows that current policies for providing positive incentives (such as easier overseas travel and access to certain events) for vaccinated individuals will result in a better outcome for society as a whole.” His conclusion was based on an analogue of the classical prisoner’s dilemma (Table 1) in which, say, (0, 10) means that Prisoner A gets 0 years in prison, and Prisoner B gets 10 years.

For each prisoner it is best to confess because, regardless of the decision of the other prisoner, this leads to fewer years in prison. However, while individually this is correct, it leads to a situation in which both prisoners get nine years of punishment, while (1, 1) would be optimal. This shows that individual optimality may lead to global sub-optimality.

Houben presents the COVID-19 vaccination situation as a ‘game’ between an individual and society (Table 2).

The numbers are negative, to stress that they are seen as punishments. Independent of society’s decision, the individual is better off not taking the vaccine. Of course, Houben constructed it this way by classifying an individual vaccination as a punishment, due to its possible side effects. Society’s choice is independent of the individual, so this game ends up in (0, -1).

Since Houben believes vaccination is a good thing, he claims that if vaccinations are rewarded by +2 on an individual basis, the individual will take the vaccine and we will end up in a ‘better’ situation. This can be accomplished, he says, by rewarding vaccination with “easier travelling” and “access to events”. This is the basis for the claim I quoted above.

Not playing along

Can game theory be used for purposes such as this? The answer is no. First of all, in the original prisoner’s dilemma, one defines ‘better’ in utilitarian sense: (1, 1) is better than (0, 10) since 1 + 1 is smaller than 0 + 10. However, in the (0, 10) outcome, Prisoner A is better off than they would be in the (1, 1) situation. In utilitarian ethics, torture is allowed if the pleasure of the executioner and/or others is greater than the victim’s pain. I am not sure whether we should embrace such a system – and this is probably enough to dismiss a game-theoretical approach to normative questions.

web_p35_Game-over-Table-1-and-2.jpg

Secondly, to apply game theory to normative questions, we need to define from the outset what is considered ‘good’ and ‘bad’. Houben had decided in advance what he considered good and bad, hence the numbers in Table 2. To then claim that game theory can help to reach a better outcome for society does not make any sense. The only thing one can conclude is that the game can help reach a state which the author of the table deems better.

In short, a game-theoretical approach is not helpful for normative issues such as the COVID-19 vaccination dilemma. The only thing it provides is an unwarranted scientific touch to a personal opinion.

I have no objection against a personal opinion, but I do object against the suggestion that game theory, let alone science, supports it.

Ronald Meester is a professor of probability theory

ACT Dec21_Full LR.jpg
This article appeared in our December 2021 issue of The Actuary.
Click here to view this issue
Filed in:
General Features
Topics:
Risk & ERM

You might also like...

Share
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Linked in
  • Mail
  • Print

Latest Jobs

Senior Underwriting Risk Manager

London (Central)
£85K-£95K + Benefits
Reference
124386

Reserving Manager (Contract)

London (Central)
£1200 - £1400 per day
Reference
124385

Life Actuary - Contract - IFRS 17 Financial Impact

England, London / England, Bristol / North Yorkshire, England
£900 - £1150 per day
Reference
124384
See all jobs »
 
 

Today's top reads

 
 

Sign up to our newsletter

News, jobs and updates

Sign up

Subscribe to The Actuary

Receive the print edition straight to your door

Subscribe
Spread-iPad-slantB-june.png

Topics

  • Data Science
  • Investment
  • Risk & ERM
  • Pensions
  • Environment
  • Soft skills
  • General Insurance
  • Regulation Standards
  • Health care
  • Technology
  • Reinsurance
  • Global
  • Life insurance
​
FOLLOW US
The Actuary on LinkedIn
@TheActuaryMag on Twitter
Facebook: The Actuary Magazine
CONTACT US
The Actuary
Tel: (+44) 020 7880 6200
​

IFoA

About IFoA
Become an actuary
IFoA Events
About membership

Information

Privacy Policy
Terms & Conditions
Cookie Policy
Think Green

Get in touch

Contact us
Advertise with us
Subscribe to The Actuary Magazine
Contribute

The Actuary Jobs

Actuarial job search
Pensions jobs
General insurance jobs
Solvency II jobs

© 2022 The Actuary. The Actuary is published on behalf of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries by Redactive Publishing Limited. All rights reserved. Reproduction of any part is not allowed without written permission.

Redactive Media Group Ltd, 71-75 Shelton Street, London WC2H 9JQ