0
0
As flu season arrives and the ongoing threat of COVID-19 remains, Dartmouth researchers are proposing a novel approach to pandemic management using game theory. Their study, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, offers a fresh perspective on public health measures like masking and social distancing, suggesting that a more adaptive, flexible strategy could lead to greater cooperation from the public.
The study challenges traditional thinking by treating masking and social distancing as distinct actions, rather than two sides of the same coin. According to the researchers, this new framework allows for more nuanced public health guidelines that could respond to how people feel about these measures at any given time.
Feng Fu, an associate professor of mathematics at Dartmouth and the study’s corresponding author, explains that current approaches often treat nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs), like masking and social distancing, as a unified strategy to control diseases without relying on medications. However, Fu and doctoral student Alina Glaubitz argue that people’s responses to these actions differ significantly, and that understanding these dynamics is crucial for effective public health planning.
The researchers employed a standard computer model used by epidemiologists to simulate public behavior during outbreaks. The model does not rely on public mandates but instead examines how individuals might voluntarily engage in masking, social distancing, or no protective measures at all, depending on their perceptions of disease severity and the associated costs.
Fu emphasizes that, in their model, masking, distancing, and doing nothing are competing actions. People’s choices are influenced by infection levels and the perceived cost-effectiveness of each measure. For example, the study found that during the COVID-19 pandemic, people were initially resistant to social distancing due to its economic and mental health impacts. However, as infections spread, individuals gradually shifted toward this measure.
Over time, the study revealed a trend: people tended to prefer masking or opting out of protective measures altogether. Once individuals adopted less disruptive measures like masking, they were less likely to return to more stringent actions such as social distancing, which the study identified as the most costly and disruptive NPI.
“Understanding how people weigh the costs and benefits of different interventions is key to timing their implementation effectively and increasing cooperation,” Fu states. Glaubitz, who specializes in evolutionary game theory and infectious disease dynamics, adds that their work provides valuable insights into when and why people are more likely to adopt certain protective behaviors.
The researchers suggest that policymakers can use surveys, public sentiment, and economic conditions to assess which measures the public is likely to accept. Fu notes, “Choices matter—both the measures policymakers implement and the timing of them. Recommendations need to align with the public’s natural preferences to minimize resistance.”
However, the COVID-19 pandemic has shown that public sentiment does not always align with the public health strategies deemed necessary. Fu and Glaubitz recommend a dual behavioral response—a “Swiss cheese” approach—in which multiple lighter interventions, such as masking combined with moderate social distancing, are layered to mitigate the spread of disease. While not as stringent as full-scale lockdowns or isolation measures, this strategy aims to balance effectiveness with public compliance.
“Layering multiple, less burdensome measures can achieve effective disease mitigation while aligning with the natural progression of public preferences,” Fu concludes. He emphasizes the importance of clear communication: explaining the need for certain interventions and presenting less disruptive alternatives can help foster compliance and build trust in public health measures.
This new perspective on pandemic response highlights the importance of understanding public behavior and adapting strategies accordingly, offering a way forward that might better balance public health goals with individual willingness to cooperate.
