PT - JOURNAL ARTICLE AU - Zhanshan (Sam) Ma AU - Liexun Yang TI - CDC (Cindy and David’s Conversations) Game: Advising President to Survive Pandemic AID - 10.1101/2022.03.14.22272381 DP - 2022 Jan 01 TA - medRxiv PG - 2022.03.14.22272381 4099 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/03/15/2022.03.14.22272381.short 4100 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/03/15/2022.03.14.22272381.full AB - Ongoing debates on anti-COVID19 policies have been focused on coexistence vs. zero-out strategies, which can be simplified as “always open (AO)” vs. “always closed (AC).” We postulate that, the middle ground between the two extremes, dubbed LOHC (low-risk open and high-risk closed), is likely more favorable, precluding obviously irrational HOLC (high-open-low-closed). From a meta-strategy perspective, these four policies cover the full spectrum of anti-pandemic policies. We argue that, among numerous factors influencing strategic policy-making, the competence of advisory body such as CDC chief-scientist (say, Cindy) and politics in decision-making body such as president (David), and their cooperation/communication can be critical. Here we investigate anti-pandemic policy-making by harnessing the power of evolutionary game theory in modeling competition/cooperation/communication (three critical processes underlying biological and social evolutions). Specifically, we apply the Sir Philip Sydney (SPS) game, a 4×4 signaler-responder evolutionary game with 16 strategic interactions, which was devised to investigate the reliability of communication that can modulate competition and cooperation, to capture rich idiosyncrasies surrounding today’s anti-pandemic policies. By emulating the reality of anti-pandemic policies today, the study aims to identify possible cognitive gaps and traps. The extended SPS, dubbed CDC (Cindy and David’s Conversations) game, offers a powerful cognitive model for investigating the coexistence/zero-out dichotomy and possible alternatives. The rigorous analytic solutions and extensive simulations suggest a take-home message—keep it persistently simple and rational: while apparently preferred middle-ground LOHC seems to be small-probability (∼0.05) event counter-intuitively, the AO and AC policies appears to be large-probability (∼0.41-0.53) events.Lay Summary Ongoing debates on anti-COVID19 policies have been focused on coexistence-with vs. zero-out (virus) strategies, which can be simplified as “always open (AO)” vs. “always closed (AC).” We postulate that middle ground, dubbed LOHC (low-risk-open and high-risk-closed), is likely more favorable, precluding obviously irrational HOLC (high-risk-open and low-risk-closed). From a meta-strategy perspective, these four policies cover the full spectrum of anti-pandemic policies. By emulating the reality of anti-pandemic policies today, the study aims to identify possible cognitive gaps and traps by harnessing the power of evolutionary game-theoretic analysis and simulations, which suggest that (i) AO and AC seems to be “high-probability” events (∼0.41-0.53); (ii) counter-intuitively, the middle ground—LOHC—seems to be small-probability event (∼0.05), possibly due to its unduly complexity, mirroring its wide-range failures in practice.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis study received funding from the Cloud-Ridge Industry Technology Leader Grant.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesI confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAll data generated from this study are from computer simulation and included in the Supplementary Tables S1-S4. No data related to human subjects (neither biometric data nor their behavioral measures) are used in this study and no ethical approval is applicable. Supplementary Tables S1-S4 are available upon request, and not provided here due to file-size limitation.