Comments on: Game theory says give, not receive, flu vaccine http://www.futurity.org/health-medicine/game-theory-says-give-not-receive-flu-vaccine/ Research news from leading universities Sun, 12 Feb 2012 20:20:22 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4 By: Sun http://www.futurity.org/health-medicine/game-theory-says-give-not-receive-flu-vaccine/comment-page-1/#comment-451 Sun Tue, 22 Sep 2009 15:39:02 +0000 http://futurity.org/?p=4176#comment-451 Thanks for the comment above. According to definition, the cross population infection probability describes the chance that any given infected individual infecting a susceptible individual in another population, not the probability that the disease spreads from one group to another. In fact the later probability is 1 according to the model. The paper justifies that the assumption is not restrictive, and helps revealing interesting results in theory. Thanks for the comment above. According to definition, the cross population infection probability describes the chance that any given infected individual infecting a susceptible individual in another population, not the probability that the disease spreads from one group to another. In fact the later probability is 1 according to the model. The paper justifies that the assumption is not restrictive, and helps revealing interesting results in theory.

]]> By: R Savage http://www.futurity.org/health-medicine/game-theory-says-give-not-receive-flu-vaccine/comment-page-1/#comment-445 R Savage Mon, 21 Sep 2009 22:06:19 +0000 http://futurity.org/?p=4176#comment-445 The paper seems well reasoned, but the Futurity article misleads. Sun, et al, state explicitly a seminal and essential premise, " We show that for small probabilities of between-country infections..." Perhaps, the best candidate country for applying the results shown in this paper is the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea. Would any care to name another country so isoloated, that can isolated, or can be so internally segregated as to produce this perfect initial condition? Further, with the only identified candidate for "central planner" being the WHO, how would member countries ensure equitable treatment for their populations against, say, a bias to protect younger ppopulations at the sacrifice of older populations? Should a country with a more aged population such as that of Japan or China be expected to allow its citizens to perish while the younger populations such as that of Namibia or India survive? Sun, et al, intrugue but genuine application seems fantasy. The paper seems well reasoned, but the Futurity article misleads. Sun, et al, state explicitly a seminal and essential premise, ” We show that for small probabilities of between-country infections…” Perhaps, the best candidate country for applying the results shown in this paper is the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea.

Would any care to name another country so isoloated, that can isolated, or can be so internally segregated as to produce this perfect initial condition? Further, with the only identified candidate for “central planner” being the WHO, how would member countries ensure equitable treatment for their populations against, say, a bias to protect younger ppopulations at the sacrifice of older populations? Should a country with a more aged population such as that of Japan or China be expected to allow its citizens to perish while the younger populations such as that of Namibia or India survive?

Sun, et al, intrugue but genuine application seems fantasy.

]]>