To mask, or not to mask, Alice and Bob’s dating dilemma

Formulation of the ABD game

Table 1 illustrates the formulation of ABD (Alice and Bob’s dating dilemma) problem as a SPS game. It listed the four possible options (strategies) Alice and Bob each may have and their 16 possible interactions, mirrored the options of Sir Philip and his comrade in the traditional SPS game. Fig 1 further displays the ABD as a decision-tree and strategy matrix. In consideration of the counter-intuitive nature of the strategy set, Box 1 further exposes the formulation and transformation of the ABD game from the classic SPS game, including the three elements (who, what, and how) of the SPS/ABD game. Box 2 exposes the parameters of the SPS/ABD game.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Fig 1.

A decision-tree of ABD (Alice-Bob masking dilemma) formulated as a 4-by-4 asymmetrical SPS (Sir Philip Sidney) game: The terminal nodes show the payoffs of Alice and Bob, respectively. The dotted lines depict the Alice’s information sets, but Bob may not be able to distinguish the decision nodes connected by the dotted lines. In other words, the dotted lines indicate that Bob does not know Alice’s health status ahead of their dating.

In Table 1 the top section is the Sir Philip Sidney (SPS) game proposed by Maynard-Smith (1991) and further extended by Huttegger & Zollman (2010) and Whitmeyer (2020). In formulating the ABD as a SPS game, we adopted slightly different symbols with the original SPS game, with Alice for ‘Signaler’ (‘Sender’) and Bob for ‘Responder’ (‘Donor’). As explained in Table 1 and Fig 1, we map ‘not masking’ in the ABD to ‘signaling’ in the original SPS game transmitting signal—”I am healthy or not infected with COVID-19.” This is equivalent to use ‘masking’ for transmitting signal—I am infected with COVID-19. Regarding Bob’s response, ‘not masking only if Alice masks’ is translated into ‘donate only if no signal,’ and ‘not masking only if Alice does not mask’ is translated into ‘donate only if signal.’

Obviously, since all 16 strategies from the 4-by-4 combinatorial options of Alice and Bob’s interactions are covered by the mapping to a SPS game, specific mapping between the strategies of ABD and existing SPS game is less important in analyzing the games. Nothing is really special about the mapping scheme we adopt in Table 1 other than considering/accommodating intuitions. For example, the very first mapping ‘not masking’ in the ABD game to ‘signaling’ in SPS game was in consideration of an intuition (opinion) of some people, i.e., there is not a need to mask if I am healthy, transmitting a signal of the healthy state. However, others may not agree with this opinion, and the alterative opinions (intuitions) are covered by other strategies in our translation scheme illustrated in Table 1 and Fig 1.

The bottom sections of Table 1 and Fig 1 assign a series of labels (A-P) for 16 combinatorial strategies of Alice and Bob, which makes it convenient for discussing the analytical results of the ABD game such as its equilibriums (Table 2) and payoff (fitness) (Table 3). Box 3 and Box 4 introduce some essential terminologies used for discussing the equilibriums and payoff (fitness) of the ABD game. See Box 1 for further clarifications of the remaining issues regarding the formulation of the ABD game, as well as the exposition of the ABD parameters (Box 2).

Equilibriums and Stabilities of the ABD Game

Here we take advantage of the Huttegger & Zollman (2010) extensions and analytical works on the SPS game, and summarize the equilibriums of the ABD game in Table 2, and the payoff of the ABD game in Table 3, respectively.

To analyze the dynamic stabilities of ABD game, the two-population replicator dynamics model of SPS game can be formulated as follows, according to Huttegger & Zollman (2001):

Assuming x_i is the relative frequency of Alice’s strategy type i, and y_j is the relative frequency of Bob’s strategy type j, where i, j=1, 2, 3, 4, the replicator dynamics is as follows: where and , are the strategy sets of Alice and Bob respectively; is the payoff of i strategy against and is the average payoff in Alice’s population; is the payoff of j strategy against and is the average payoff in Bob’s population.

We first interpret the equilibriums of the ABD game as follows:

Strategy A is a Nash equilibrium

With the strategy pair A of (A₁ vs. B₁), Alice does not wear a mask only if she is healthy and Bob does not wear a mask only if Alice wears a mask. This strategy pair is a Nash equilibrium and is asymptotically stable (see Box 3 and Box 4 for the terminology interpretations). The rational for Alice may be that, if she was healthy, she would not need to wear a mask since there was no risk to spread virus, and Bob would wear a mask anyway to be cautious (in case Alice’s hid her healthy status). In this case, Alice is sending a message (“she is healthy”) by not wearing a mask, but Bob tends to be cautious; in particular, he does not necessary trust Alice’s signal.

Overall, the strategy pair A seems to mirror the behaviors of those who generally believe the benefits of mask wearing and tend to be cautious. Furthermore, since A is a Nash equilibrium, those believers do not regret for their decisions once they are committed.

Strategy F is an ESS (evolutionary stable strategy) and is asymptotically stable

With the strategy pair F of (A₂ vs. B₂), Alice does not wear a mask only if she is infected, and Bob does not wear a mask only if Alice does not wear a mask. With this strategy, if Alice is infected, both Alice and Bob do not wear masks. This strategy is an ESS, which means it is resistant to ‘mutation’ or ‘invasion’—such as random change of individual behavior. However, it is not unbreakable. When external selection forces are too strong, the equilibrium may be overturned (Box 3 and Box 4). The apparent irrationality with this strategy is not totally out of touch with reality. For example, when Alice is overly concerned with possible social stigma associated with masking then she may choose not to wear a mask. Similarly, Bob may be concerned more with Alice’s perception on him than with the infection risk, particularly, when the overall infection probability is extremely low. Other possible scenarios in real world of such masking strategies may include the influences of misinformation or politics similar to those mentioned in Peeples (2020), and Bergstrom &West (2020). One may conceive that when the infection probability (m) and/or the strategic cost (c) (for nor honestly signaling) are dramatically raised, the equilibrium may be broken.

Overall, the strategy pair F seems to mirror the behaviors of mask skeptics. However, since F is an ESS, their belief may be changed when some of them “mutate” their behavior when the pandemic expands and ultimately they may be converted from skeptics to neutral or even believers.

Strategy L is a pooling equilibrium

With the strategy pair L of (A₃ vs. B₄), Alice always wears a mask but Bob never wear a mask. The equilibrium is neutrally stable. Perhaps Bob felt protected if Alice wore one and it is unnecessary for him to wear one too, and mostly likely Bob could simply be a mask skeptic (given this is a pooling equilibrium).

Overall, the strategy pair L seems to mirror a divided world of mask believers and mask skeptics. The difference between the strategy L and previous described strategy F is that F is a world of mask skeptic (although they may be converted when the pandemic expands) and the L is a divided world of believers and skeptics (both populations may coexist). Again, such strategies may indeed exist in real world, similar to the scenarios described in Peeples (2020).

From a pure theoretic perspective, the equilibrium type L is more likely to become established because it has a larger basin of attraction, which measures the likelihood of evolving under standard evolutionary dynamics [Eqn. (1)-(2)].

Mixed Strategies of J and K are pooling strategies and both are behaviorally equivalent

When Alice adopted strategy A₃ (always masking), and Bob adopted a mixed strategy of B₂ (not masking only if Alice does not mask) with probability (1−λ) and B₃ (always masking) with probability λ, there is a pooling equilibrium that is neutrally stable. The condition for the equilibrium to occur is d > k[ma + (1 − m)b]. Bob’s mixed strategy is (1 − λ)B₂ + λB₃, and λ ≥ [1 − c /(a − kd)] determines the strategy of Bob. A scenario for achieving this equilibrium may be like this: Before dating, Bob was not aware of Alice’s healthy status. He either wore no mask when he spotted Alice did not wear a mask, or alternatively he always wore a mask (when he spotted Alice wore a mask, or he just took a fail-safe strategy).

Theoretically, when he hesitates, he can resort to λ to make an optimal decision, i.e., choose B₂ when λ ≥ [1 − c /(a − kd)], B₃ when λ < [1 − c /(a − kd)]. Since Alice always wears a mask, Bob would always wear a mask anyway, and the above rule for decision-making is moot in reality. Strategies J and K are behaviorally equivalent with each other.

Overall, the mixed strategies J & K seem to be closest to the universal voluntarily masking in real world. Some citizens might hesitate, but ultimately they followed the crowd.

Mixed strategies of I and L are pooling strategies and both are behaviorally equivalent

When Alice adopted strategy A₃ (always masking) and Bob adopted a mixed strategy of B₁ (not masking only if Alice masks) with probability (1−μ) and B₄ (never masking) with probability μ, where μ = 1 −[c /(kd − b)], there is a pooling equilibrium that is neutrally stable. Similar to previous J & K strategies, there is a pooling equilibrium that is neutrally stable, but here μ determines the strategy of Bob. Intuitively, since Alice always wears a mask, Bob would not wear a mask since he may believe it is unnecessary for him to wear one. Strategies I and L are behaviorally equivalent with each other.

Overall, the mixed strategies I & L appear to be closest to the voluntarily masking: people make rational decisions based on their own assessments of the risk they perceived.

Polymorphic hybrid strategies

Alice adopted a mixed strategy of A₂ (not masking only if infected) and A₄ (never masking), and Bob also took a mixed strategy of B₂ (not masking only if Alice does not mask) and B₃ (always masking). With these options, there is a hybrid equilibrium that is polymorphic.

Overall, Alice seems to be a mask skeptic, and Bob appears to be variable. When he saw that Alice did not wear a mask, he chose to follow her to please her; but in other occasions, he ignored Alice’s message and chose to wear a mask. What’s interesting is that Bob might have a “split character” or bounded rationality: sometimes blindly following Alice, whereas being very cautious other times. This is obviously the most complex strategy interaction, and corresponding equilibriums heavily depend on the complex combinations of parameters as briefly discussed below. Here we first discuss how Alice and Bob make their decisions and then use simulations to further demonstrate some of the important properties of this strategy in the next section.

First, how would Alice make her decision? In fact, it is the parameter μ that determines her decision to choose either A₂ or A₄. Theoretically, when she hesitates, she can resort to μ to make an optimal decision, i.e., choose A₂ when μ > c /(b − kd), A₄ when μ < c /(b − kd). When μ = c /(b − kd), she tends to adopt mixed strategy λA₂ + (1 − λ)A₄.

For example, when μ > c /(b − kd), Alice would prefer to choose A₂, she would not wear a mask (not worry of being infected) if she was already infected and wear a mask (worry of being infected) if she was not infected. This choice would suggest that Alice is a more selfish person. In contrast, when μ < c /(b − kd), Alice would never wear a mask anyway, perhaps worrying of being perceived as timid.

Second, how would Bob make his decision of B₂ or B₃ in response to Alice’s signal or lack of signal at all? Bob’s decision would depend on parameter λ. When λ > {K[ma + (1 − m)b] − d}/[(1 − m)(kb − d)], Bob would prefer to choose B_2, or B₃ when λ < {K[ma + (1 − m)b] − d}/[(1 − m)(kb − d)]. When λ = {K[ma + (1 − m)b] − d}/[(1 − m)(kb − d)], he tends to adopt mixed strategy μB₂ + (1 − μ)B₃.

For example, when λ > {K[ma + (1 − m)b] − d}/[(1 − m)(kb − d)], Bob would prefer B₂, he would not wear a mask if Alice did not either. In this case, Bob seemed to trust Alice’s signal. When λ < {K[ma + (1 − m)b] − d}/[(1 − m)(kb − d)], Bob would prefer B_3, ignoring possible prejudice against masking and always wearing a mask to avoid infection or being infected. This hybrid equilibrium is Lyapunov stable, which implies that the actual stability may vary depending on the values of parameters. In other words, the stability of equilibriums may be broken when conditions such as infection probability and/or cost change dramatically. Fig 2 shows an example of the decision-making in the phase space of the polymorphic hybrid equilibrium, obtained from the simulation study explained below. The polymorphic hybrid strategies, arguably, represent the most sophisticated options, which reflect the dynamic (evolutionary) nature of the masking-or-not decision-making.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Fig 2.

An example output from the simulation program, i.e., the phase portrait of the polymorphic hybrid equilibrium with the hybrid strategy of Alice (A₂, A₄) vs. Bob (B₂, B₃) under following parameter values: a=0.7, b=0.3, c=0.1, d=0.3, k=0.5 and m=0.4. Bob and Alice make their decisions based on (λ, μ)=(0.778, 0.666). If μ>0.666, Alice prefers to choose A₂ over A₄, as indicated by the direction of portrait arrow (to left). If μ<0.666, Alice prefers to choose A₄ over A₂, as indicated by the direction of portrait (to right). When μ=0.666, the mixed strategy of A₂ and A₄ is chosen. Similarly, Bob makes his strategic decisions based on the value of parameter λ >0.778, <0.778 or =0.778.

Simulation Study

Simulation Procedures and Illustrative Graphs

The online supplementary information (OSI) include the codes in Python for simulating the replicator dynamics of the ABD game [Eqns. (1) and (2)]. Table S1-S6 in the OSI contain 6 MS-Excel sheets generated from the Python program. The sheets contain the ABD parameters and payoffs of the simulated equilibriums for each of the six equilibrium types. The lists of the equilibriums are obviously non-exhaustive, and were generated based on the necessary conditions (listed in Table 2) for those equilibriums. However, the full ranges of the parameters (all ranged between 0 and 1) with step length=0.1 were simulated, and therefore the simulated equilibriums can be considered as representative samples of the ABD equilibrium space.

Although the analytical solutions for the ABD game are available (Tables 2 & 3), they are far from intuitive, which is the main reason we performed above-described simulation experiments. Indeed, given their complexity, even with numerical simulations, it is still difficult obtain the full spectrum of complex behaviors transpired by the game model. The strength with simulations is that it can be helpful to get more intuitive interpretations for the behaviors. Below, we briefly discuss three simulated results, as displayed in Figs 2-5, as well as Table S7. All of the figures were drawn based on the simulation results in Table S1-S7.

Fig 2 shows an example for the dynamic properties of the equilibriums, i.e., the phase portrait of the polymorphic hybrid equilibrium with the hybrid strategy of Alice (A₂, A₄) vs. Bob (B₂, B₃) under following parameter values: a=0.7, b=0.3, c=0.1, d=0.3, k=0.5, and m=0.4. Bob and Alice make their decisions based on (λ, μ)=(0.778, 0.666), which is an equilibrium point as displayed as red spot in Fig 2. If μ>0.666, Alice prefers to choose A₂ over A₄, as indicated by the direction of portrait arrow (to left). If μ<0.666, Alice prefers to choose A₄ over A₂, as indicated by the direction of portrait (to right). When μ =0.666, the mixed strategy of A₂ and A₄ is chosen. Similarly, Bob makes his strategic decisions based on the value of parameter λ >0.778, <0.778 or =0.778. Similar phase portraits for other types of equilibriums could be drawn based on the results in Table S1-S6.

Fig 3 exhibits an example demonstrating the influences of the infection probability (m) and strategic cost (c) of signaling on Alice’s or Bob’s payoff (fitness) in the case of polymorphic hybrid equilibriums. Higher infections and costs correspond to lower payoffs, and vice versa, lower infections and costs lead to higher payoff, which should be expected. The effects of other parameters such as relatedness (k) on the payoffs could also be plotted based on the simulated results in Table S1-S6.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Fig 3.

Simulations showing the influences of infection probability and strategic cost on the players’ payoffs (top for Alice’s payoff and bottom for Bob’s payoff): When the cost and infection are high, Alice’s payoff approximates to the floor, and vice versa Alice’s Payoff approximates to the ceiling. Bob’s payoff exhibited similar trend. Indeed, their payoffs are positively correlated as further illustrated in Figs 4 & 5.

Fig 4 displays the relationships between Alice’s payoff and Bob’s payoff. We fitted both linear and quadratic (parabolic) regression models to the payoff data in Table S1-S6, and the fitted model parameters were listed in Table S7 for all six equilibrium types listed in Table 2. Overall, the relationships follow the parabolic (quadratic) model for four of the six equilibrium types, including A, F, J-K and hybrid, follow the simple linear model for the remaining two equilibrium types (i.e., L, I-L). It seems that the linear relationship between Alice’s and Bob’s payoffs could be attributed to Alice’s straightforward “always masking” strategy, which might “smooth” their payoff relationship. Indeed, in the case of the two linear models, most data points straightly fall on the fitted straight lines, where the data points with the parabolic curve are more scattered and suggesting stronger fluctuations between Alice’s and Bob’s payoffs. The fluctuation is obvious in Fig 5 as explained below.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Fig 4.

Simulations illustrating the relationships between Alice’s and Bob’s payoffs: parabolic relationships with equilibriums (A, F, JK, and hybrid: the top four), and linear relationships with equilibriums (L & IL: the bottom two). Notice that the N.E at the right corner of each graph shows the number of equilibriums obtained from the simulations and was used to draw the graph, and two linear graphs appear to have fewer data points due to points overlaps. We postulate that the two simple linear relationships may be attributed to Alice’s straightforward strategy (“always masking”).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Fig 5.

A polar coordinate graph showing the correlation between Alice’s and Bob’s payoffs with the polymorphic hybrid strategies: the radial coordinate showing the payoffs and the angular simply showing the sequencing numbers of each pair of payoffs, which does not actually have particular order (could be random) and is not really interesting. What is interesting is, we observed, that the relationship on a coarse scale (macroscopic) may be parabolic or even linear (see Fig 4), but the relationship on a fine scale (microscopic) may be complex nonlinear fluctuations, suggesting subtle intricacies between the payoffs and mirroring the complex idiosyncratic behaviors surrounding the ABD game.

In Fig 5, the relationship between Alice’s and Bob’s payoffs for the polymorphic hybrid equilibrium was redrawn with polar coordinate system. The polar coordinate more conspicuously illustrated the locally fluctuating payoff relationship, rather than globally stable parabolic relationship as shown in Fig 4. In other words, the relationship on a coarse scale (macroscopic) can be parabolic or even linear (see Fig 4), but the relationship on a fine scale (microscopic) seem to be complex nonlinear fluctuations, suggesting subtle intricacies between Alice’s and Bob’s payoffs and mirroring the complex idiosyncratic behaviors surrounding the ABD game.

Conclusions and Discussion

It has been argued that one of the most important reasons why we humans have come to dominate the earth is attributed to our exceptional evolutionary capacity for decision-making (Samson 2020). Although on macroscopic scale, we have been enormously successful from selecting the right food and shelter, to devising complex economic strategies and effective public health policies, it is fair to say, we occasionally make expensive and painful mistakes on both an individual and a group level (Samson 2020). The COVID-19 pandemic has been one of the biggest challenges to the health and well-beings of humans in recent decades. It is obviously in the best interests of whole society and each individual to make right decisions to minimize the pandemic impacts. The challenging decision-making in facing the COVID-19 pandemic crisis involves both groups and individuals, and history tells us groups are not necessarily more likely to make right decisions, especially when the communication and interactions between individuals could not be controlled (Sunstein & Hastie 2015, Samson 2020). The bounded rationality and lack of full honesty may be inherent with Homo sapiens, which makes some apparently simple decision-making such as masking disproportionally complex. The challenge seems particularly real in the era of disinformation (e.g., Bergstrom & West 2020). It was these properties that prompted us to apply the SPS game and underlying handicap principle, which has achieved enormous success in analyzing the evolution of animal communications, to study the ABD problem. Since we are only interested in strategic decision-making on masking, it is natural for us to focus on the stable equilibriums and corresponding payoffs under variously possible strategies. Tactical or operational level analyses are obviously beyond the scope of this article.

In previous sections, we formulated the ABD as an evolutionary game, specifically as a SPS game. There are 16 possible options or strategy combinations given that SPS game is an asymmetric four-by-four strategic-form game. We summarized a total of six types of equilibriums (Table 2) from the 16 possible strategic combinations and their payoffs (inclusive fitness) (Table 3). Those equilibriums can be distinguished as separating (signaling), pooling, and polymorphic hybrid equilibriums, and they may have different behavioral and payoff properties (see Box 3, Box 4 and Table 3). Furthermore, their stabilities can be dramatically different (Table 2), which may have different theoretical and practical ramifications. Theoretically, those ramifications have been extensively studied and well documented in the existing literatures (e.g., Maynard-Smith & Harper 2003, Huttegger & Zollman 2001, Bergstrom & Lachmann 1997, 1998, Biernaskie et al 2018, Madgwick & Wolf 2020, Whitmeyer 2020). However, their practical ramifications are much more complex, which we briefly discuss below.

In our opinion, the ABD provides a powerful abstraction for analyzing the masking behavior in the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the ABD can only reveal possible behavior types (game strategies). To fully understand various masking (or not masking) behavior decisions, we must also consider the cultural and humanity dimensions of the problem. While medical science studies have generally support the masking or even universal masking strategies (e.g., Klompas et al. 2020, Gandhi et al. 2020, Peeples 2020), in reality, from the very beginning of COVID-19 pandemic until today, protests have never stopped in some regions of the world. Indeed, masking still seems to be one of few most controversial issues in public health policy surrounding COVID-19 (Peeples 2020). In the remainder of this article, we try to shed light on the ABD of masking from the perspective of behavior economics.

According to behavior economics (Samson 2014, 2020), it is not always true than humans are self-interested, benefits maximizing, and costs minimizing with stable preferences. Our minds may only possess bounded rationality, which suggests that human rationality is limited by brain’s information processing capability, insufficient knowledge feedback, and time constraint. For example, our thinking and decisions may be strongly influenced by readily available information in memory, automatically produced affection, and salient information in the environment. Humans live in the moment, often resist to changing and may be bad in predicting future behavior. Last but not the least important, humans are social animals with social preferences, including those embedded in trust, reciprocity and fairness. We are also emotional animals and are subject to social norms, caring reputation and self-consistency (Ma 2015a, 2015b, Samson 2014, 2020).

An obviously different attitude has emerged between the Eastern and Western towards the using of facial mask at the very beginning of the COVID outbreaks. We postulate that the difference might be related to holistic verse analytic thinking styles. It has been argued that the differences in thinking styles may have a profound influence on the tensions between the psychology of Homo economicus and Homo sapiens, being relatively weaker in Eastern-Asian cultures (Nisbett et al. 2001). The holistic reasoning is more likely context-dependent, in which people tend to use their intuition more if it is in conflict with formal rationality and tend to accept variations across scenarios (Nisbett et al. 2001, Samson 2014). This may explains relatively less resistance to the advocacy of using masks in public places in the Eastern Asian.

It might be disappointing that we can produce few concrete recommendations to the general public from the present study regarding the masking dilemma, other than highlighting its complexity and its multidimensional nature (including science, culture, information availability, and etc), for which existing studies have presented confirmative recommendations in general (e.g., Peeples 2020). Instead, our contribution, hopefully being intellectual, lies in the formal abstraction of the problem and presented formal strategic options as well as their stabilities and payoffs in 16 possible strategic options (scenarios) and 6 types of equilibriums. Whereas the number of scenarios (16), equilibrium types (6) with various stability features may vary with other alternative abstract models, we believe our ABD game model is sufficiently general for further scientific investigation of the dilemma from a multi-dimensional perspective. As to the reason why we cannot generate tangible recommendations at this stage, it becomes clear if one notices how the society has been dealing with the impact of cigarette smoking, even after the hazards of second-hand smoking have been revealed by many scientific studies (Samson 2014, 2020). If we choose to make one recommendation, our suggestion would be that nudging could be a more effective strategy in advocating masking. In recent years, nudging or nudge philosophy has been used in many public-policy devising such as consumer welfare (Thaler & Sunstein 2008). The nudge philosophy treat people as Homo behaviouralis, shifted from Homo economicus, in which policy or advocacy is designed to modify the context in which decisions are made without changing the constraints faced while the freedom of choice is preserved (Samson 2020). For example, rather than posting “no mask, no service”, perhaps an alternative post with “please keep 2 meters of distance if you forget to bring mask” could be equally effective.

In conclusion, despite the demonstrated complexities from our ABD game model, it seems that the six types of equilibriums theoretically derived from the game model adequately explain the diverse “norms of masking” evolved in much of the world with the progression of COVID-19 pandemic. Those norms represent diverse behaviors of mask believers, skeptics, converted, universal masking, voluntarily masking, coexisted and/or divided world of believers and skeptics, and their evolutions (formations) have obviously influenced by various scientific, social and other complex factors, and most importantly the severity of the pandemic. They are of different level of stabilities (resilience) at present and they are expected to continue evolve with the progression of the pandemic. As a science paper, we stick to the validity of mathematic logic underlying the ABD game model. Nevertheless, we do not pronounce a position for the right or wrong of those norms (including those that may be counterintuitive, unnatural or irrational ones) since we believe mutual respects and accommodations are part of the humanity. We are hoping that the breakthroughs in medical sciences such as vaccines or new treatments will ultimately make the issue of masking moot. The only regret (in our opinion) might be that Alice and Bob are likely to stick to working at home even after their dilemmas disappear! Of course, we wish them a lifetime of love and happiness!

Perspective

It is the summer of 2021 already when we are revising this manuscript, while the COVID-19 pandemic has been going on wave after wave for near two years, despite the expanding vaccination efforts worldwide. The emergence and spreading of significantly more vicious δ-variant and somewhat disappointing protective efficacy of vaccines have prompted some countries (regions) to reenact some level of mask mandates, together with vaccination promotions and even mandates, while uncertainties surrounding the pandemic refuse to fade away. Public attitudes to masks have gone through about-face changes in many parts of the world, and mostly turned to accepting it as an effective personal protection equipment. From the perspective of ABD game modeling, the rising infection risk (m) should have shaped the evolution of masking behaviors since the start of the pandemic; yet we believe other social, cultural, economic and political factors have certainly played significant roles too.

Through this article, we have minimized the discussion on the politics surrounding masking behaviors/policies and COVID-19 at large. Nevertheless, in reality, politics are hardly avoidable in making public health policies. We realize that some of the peculiar, idiosyncratic behaviors simulated by the ABD game might be rightly explained by science denialism, politics or political economy of pandemics. In fact, during the submission processes of this manuscript, we were advised by an anonymous expert reviewer in another journal to formulate the ABD game as “one in which the signaler’s state is instead her political leaning (left or right, say), …” We do believe that was an excellent idea and may pursue it in future.

While avoiding or minimizing politics in the science of anti-pandemic is crucial for making sound public health policies such as masking, vaccination, quarantines, and/or lockdown, it is equally important to avoid the “counter-revolution of science” (Hayek 1955). The “counter-revolution” of science refers to the attempt to remove the human factor in order to obtain objective, strictly controlled results by using the so-termed hard science approaches, or the attempt to measure human action itself with the soft science approaches. The limitations of such attempts can be particularly serious when the scientific reasoning is based on incomplete information or knowledge. It is for this reason, we caution that the results of ABD modeling such as the equilibriums should only be used as explanatory/exploratory purposes at strategic level, rather than used for advising public at tactic levels.

We argue that the methodology we used to model masking behaviors with the ABD game should also be inspirational for exploring other public health policies (measures) such as social distance, lockdown/reopen and quarantines (abbreviated as DLQ hereafter). These measures are designed to physically contain the spreading of pathogens by isolation (distancing or containment) and can be characterized as either “open vs. closed”, i.e., without vs. with enforcing isolation (containment) measures such as DLQ. Obviously, masking also belongs to isolation. According to the metapopulation (i.e., population of local populations) theory (Citron et al. 2021, Ma 2020), infectious diseases such as COVID-19 can be modeled as a metapopulation of infectious pathogens, i.e., consisting of many local (regional) populations of pathogens (carried by human hosts) such as the local or regional outbreaks of COVID-19 (e.g., outbreaks in different countries). Also according to classic ecological theories (Hilker et al. 2009, Friedman et al. 2012, Ma 2020), the extinctions of local populations can be common events, although the global metapopulation is usually stable and resilient against global (total) extinction. Hilker et al. (2009) demonstrated theoretically that the disease dynamics could be rather sensitive to perturbations such as disease control methods even when the basic reproductive number (R₀) exceeds 1 significantly (R₀>>1). R₀ is often used to evaluate the potential for disease invasion and persistence, to forecast the extent of an epidemic, and to infer the impact of interventions and of relaxing control measures (Shaw & Kennedy 2021).

The Allee effect is named after animal ecologist W. C Allee, and it refers to a theoretic threshold of population size, above which population growth may accelerate and below which population may go extinct (Kramer et al. 2017). Friedman et al. (2012) investigated the interaction (relationship) between the Allee effect of disease pathogens and the Allee effect of hosts (e.g., humans); their theoretic analysis was aimed to answer a question of fundamental importance in epidemiology: Can a small number of infected individual hosts with a fatal disease drive the host population to go extinct (assuming the host population is subject to the Allee effect)? Ma (2020) estimated the fundamental migration (dispersal) number (migration rate) of COVID-19 and different countries (regions) may have different numbers. He also estimated the population aggregation critical density, the threshold for aggregated infections to occur (Ma 2020). These studies suggest that there could be thresholds (tipping points) at which local pathogen populations may go extinct, depending on the dynamics of host-pathogen system, impacted by disease control measures such as the previous defined open/closed polices. Of course, it should be a goal of public health policies to possibly drive the pathogen populations (such as SARS-COV-2), at least locally, to go extinct, while keep the host population absolutely safe from the risk associated with the Allee effect of the hosts. As demonstrated by Citron et al. (2021) with their metapopulation dynamics modeling, the human movement has a critical impact on the global spreading of infectious diseases across large geographical distances. Therefore, containment or distancing measures that can regulate human movement behaviors should be able to play a critical role in containing the pandemics such as COVID-19.

Now imagine that there are two neighboring countries A and B, who may adopt different anti-pandemic strategies, open (without adopting DLQ measures) or closed (with DLP measures). They may or not cooperate with each other by adopting the same or different strategies. Similar to previously discussed ABD game for masking behaviors, their tendency to cooperate can be measured by parameter k, indicating their shared interests. The strategic cost (c) in the ABD game can be used to characterize the consequence (such as the fatality and/or economic loss) of failure in controlling local outbreaks. The parameter (m) can be treated as a probability function of R₀ (basic reproductive number) of the pathogen. Parameters a, b, and d could be treated as probability functions that may lower the resilience (survivability) of society. With such an evolutionary game model inspired by the ABD game (let us call it “open or close dilemma”: OCD), we can expect that the complex behaviors of two countries similar to Alice and Bob be generated from the OCD model. Both countries can, in fact, represent two “metapopulations” of countries (local populations), and within each metapopulation, different countries (local populations) may actually adopt different strategies (similar to Alice and Bob each has four different strategies). With the above conceptualization, the suggested OCD model can be used to analyze the interactions of two countries (metapopulations); and the effects of the key epidemiological and ecological parameters such as the thresholds of Allee effects and R₀ can be investigated at regional/global scales.

Within the context of the suggested OCD game scheme, many countries may adopt coexistence (between humans and the pathogen) strategy, some may pursue zero-infection goal dynamically, and still others may adopt laissez-faire strategy (e.g., passive herd immunity). Intuitively, zero-infection strategy is apparently unrealistic, but it should be possible locally at the minimum, if Allee effects of the pathogen can be exploited effectively. In fact, the eradication of smallpox is a successful example of zero infection strategy. Each of the strategies may possess some unique merits, and some of which could be exclusive. There may not be a simple criterion (or even a set of criteria) to evaluate various strategies objectively given the enormous complexities of the scientific and technological, geographic, cultural, economical and political factors underlying the host-pathogen dynamic system. For example, Sy et al (2021) estimated the R₀ of 1,151 US counties with the medium of R₀=1.66, ranged from 0.38 to 12.44. One particularly important point we would like to emphasize from their findings is that the range of [0.38, 12.44] was largely dependent on local (county) population densities Their R₀ numbers were estimated before more contagious SARS-CoV-2 variants emerged. With the recent δ-variant, the upper limit of the range might be one order of magnitude higher, i.e., possibly >100 in some of the counties with highest population densities in the US, according to some recent reports on the R₀ of δ-variant. Of countries, there are many countries in the world that have higher population densities than the US. For example, while the inter-residence distances in rural USA are usually hundred of meters away, and the distance can be as few as a few meters in the apartment settings in super big cities or in countries with higher population densities. The distance differences could easily exceed 2-3 orders of magnitude. If this assumption of the difference in residence distances holds, and if the “amplification” effects of population density (especially the residence settings) discovered by Se et al. (2021) is also applicable outside the US, then the R₀ of SARS-CoV-2 (including δ-variant) in some densely populated countries may be raised by another 1-2 orders of magnitudes. The higher R₀ also implies that the occurrences of super-spreading can be more frequent and severer.

Given potentially 2-3 orders of differences in R_0, the same or similar co-existence (tolerance) policy in different countries can produce dramatically different consequences. While co-existence policy in a sparsely populated country may be a rational and even advantageous policy, the same policy may lead to disastrous outcomes in a densely populated country. Obviously, population density is certainly not the only major factor that influences R₀, and of course R₀ is not the only critical parameter of pandemics. For example, the threshold of Allee effects is another critical parameter for suppressing pandemic or eradicating a pathogen. Therefore, exploring the policies and strategies for fighting pandemics should sufficiently consider complex scientific, technological, and socioeconomic factors that shape the pathogen-host dynamic systems. Game-theoretic models such as ABD game can offer important cognitive tools for the decision-making in fighting pandemics.