Prisoner’s Dilemma during COVID -19
One of the most exciting thought experiments in philosophy is the prisoner’s dilemma as we have seen in the course. It is a situation in which “two or more players interact where their preferences have a common and reasonable structure, and the action that benefits each player does not benefit the group” (Downham 301). A real world example of this theory could be seen during the COVID -19 pandemic.
As the effects of the COVID -19 pandemic started to decline and as more people got vaccinated, state governments had to decide how they would like to reopen the economy. Learnings from the concept of prisoner’s dilemma show us that there needs to be a cohesive, coordinated plan both at the federal and state level on how to reopen the economy. Suppose we have two state governors who must make decisions regarding removing lockdown restrictions for their states. In this case, let’s assume the two states are California and Arizona. If these two states continue to place restrictions on businesses, it could lead to substantial economic losses. If these two states decide to reopen, there could be severe economic and social consequences caused by the spread of disease and rise in deaths. If only one state opens up, it would still affect the situation in the other state. This is because people can travel from one state to another since borders are fluid and arbitrary. If, for example, California decides to continue to impose restrictions but Arizona doesn’t, California could be in a worse situation. This is because of economic losses due to the closure of businesses and because of disease caused due to the opening up of the economy in Arizona. However, Arizona can benefit since it now faces lower economic losses due to the reopening of the economy and reduced likelihood of disease due to California’s restrictions. Based on these possible options, it is in the best interest of both states not to place restrictions. This is also a form of a Nash equilibrium since there is no incentive for any state to change their strategy based on the other state’s response. This idea could also be extended at the individual level. For example, if a small business owner decides to remain closed, the owner could loose out on revenue. If the business decides to open, it could not only lower economic losses but also increase its own market share from competitors. However, they also runs the risk of transmission from the virus. If all businesses open, there is a greater chance of transmission of COVID -19.
Choosing the strategy where both states or small businesses reopen would be worse overall even if its the best response for the individual. If we have a more cohesive plan with cooperation between states, it could prove to be beneficial for the group.
References:
Downham, Clare. “Brendan Smith, Ed., The Cambridge History of Ireland, Vol. 1, 600–1550. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018. Pp. Xxxv, 648; Many Black-and-White Figures, 15 Maps, and 5 Tables. $110. ISBN: 978–1-107-11067-0.Table of Contents Available Online at Https://Www.Cambridge.Org/Core/Books/Cambridge-History-of-Ireland/8FBCF69904197F39BD244EBBEDAA53B4.” Speculum, vol. 95, no. 1, 2020, pp. 301–02. Crossref, doi:10.1086/705948.
Mulaney, Annika, and Annika Mulaney. “A COVID-19 Prisoner’s Dilemma.” The Stanford Daily, 22 June 2020, www.stanforddaily.com/2020/06/21/a-covid-19-prisoners-dilemma.