Global Immunology Market 2020 Research Report with COVID-19 Impact, by Future Trend, Growth rate and Industry Analysis to 2025 – Good Night, Good…

An up-to-date intelligence study by Global Immunology Market 2020 by Company, Regions, Type and Application, Forecast to 2025 provides the present scenario of the market and offers a comparative assessment of the market. The report provides historical data, significance, statistical data, size & share, market price & demand, business overview, market analysis by product and market trends by key players. It detects that the global Immunology market by technological advancements and the presence of a large number of players, who are making the competitive landscape distributed. The report further highlights current growth factors, market threats, attentive opinions, and competitive analysis of major Immunology market players, value chain analysis, and future roadmap.

Competitiveness:

The Immunology market is fragmented and is characterized by the presence of key vendors and other prominent vendors. Key vendors are trying to maintain themselves in the global Immunology market, whereas, regional vendors are focusing on product offerings to establish themselves in the market. Vendors are providing a different range of product lines intensifying the competitive scenario.

NOTE: Our report highlights the major issues and hazards that companies might come across due to the unprecedented outbreak of COVID-19.

DOWNLOAD FREE SAMPLE REPORT: https://www.researchstore.biz/sample-request/11508

Market Potential:

The market vendors have been forecasted to obtain new opportunities as there has been an increased emphasis on spending more on the work of research and development by many of the manufacturing companies. Additionally, many of the market participants are anticipated to make a foray into the emerging economies that are yet to be explored so as to find new opportunities. The global Immunology market has gone through rapid business transformation by good customer relationships, drastic and competitive growth, significant changes within the market, and technological advancement in the worldwide market.

Topmost list manufacturers/ key player/ economy by business leaders leading players of the market are: AbbVie, eFFECTOR Therapeutics, Johnson& Johnson, Amgen, Cellectar Biosciences, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Celgene, Bionor Pharma

Geographically, this report studies market share and growth opportunity in the following key regions: North America (United States, Canada and Mexico), Europe (Germany, France, UK, Russia and Italy), Asia-Pacific (China, Japan, Korea, India, Southeast Asia and Australia), South America (Brazil, Argentina, Colombia), Middle East and Africa (Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt, Nigeria and South Africa)

On the basis of product segment, this report covers: Immuno Boosters, Immunosuppressants,

On the basis of Application segment, this report covers: Autoimmune Diseases, Oncology, Organ Transplantation, Others,

ACCESS FULL REPORT: https://www.researchstore.biz/report/global-immunology-market-11508

Important Take-Away:

Moreover, the report has covered the PEST analysis by region and key economies across the globe, PORTERs analysis, and detailed SWOT analysis of key players to analyze their strategies. It guides companies to make effective business strategy decisions by knowing the global Immunology market conditions and sentiment within the market. The report serves to adjust investment allocation by outlining key focus areas of the industry.

Customization of the Report:This report can be customized to meet the clients requirements. Please connect with our sales team (sales@researchstore.biz), who will ensure that you get a report that suits your needs. You can also get in touch with our executives on +1-201-465-4211 to share your research requirements.

About Us

Researchstore.biz is a fully dedicated global market research agency providing thorough quantitative and qualitative analysis of extensive market research.Our corporate is identified by recognition and enthusiasm for what it offers, which unites its staff across the world.We are desired market researchers proving a reliable source of extensive market analysis on which readers can rely on. Our research team consist of some of the best market researchers, sector and analysis executives in the nation, because of which Researchstore.biz is considered as one of the most vigorous market research enterprises. Researchstore.biz finds perfect solutions according to the requirements of research with considerations of content and methods. Unique and out of the box technologies, techniques and solutions are implemented all through the research reports.

Contact UsMark StoneHead of Business DevelopmentPhone: +1-201-465-4211Email: sales@researchstore.bizWeb: http://www.researchstore.biz

Go here to see the original:
Global Immunology Market 2020 Research Report with COVID-19 Impact, by Future Trend, Growth rate and Industry Analysis to 2025 - Good Night, Good...

Video: COVID-19 Why it Matters Video Series Introduction with Brian Merkel – UWGB

This video series features UW-Green Bays Immunologist Brian Merkel on COVID-19 and Why it Matters. This series empowers viewers with knowledge to help them navigate through the pandemic. Merkel has a Ph.D. in Microbiology & Immunology from the Medical College of Virginia. He is an associate professor in UW-Green Bays Human Biology & Biology programs and has an appointment at the Medical College of Wisconsin Department of Microbiology and Immunology. He will be responding to a number of questions related to COVID19 and try to get behind the why its important to be educated in your decision-making as we navigate the pandemic together.

Video Transcript Series Introduction with Brian Merkel:

Brian Merkel, Microbiology and Immunology, I have a Ph.D. from the Department of Microbiology and Immunology from the Medical College of Virginia. I currently have an appointment in the Microbiology Department and Immunology Department for the Medical College of Wisconsin, and I am the incoming chair of Human Biology at the University of Wisconsin Green Bay. And so today we are going to talk about why COVID-19 matters to you. So, the goal of these discussions is to empower you and to help you understand why this disease affects everyone and what you can do about it. So, over the series of several videos that will be our goal to do just that.

See the original post here:
Video: COVID-19 Why it Matters Video Series Introduction with Brian Merkel - UWGB

First US novel coronavirus reinfection case identified in … – Thomson Reuters Foundation

(Adds immunology expert's comment)

By Deena Beasley

Aug 28 (Reuters) - Researchers for the first time have identified someone in the United States who was reinfected with the novel coronavirus, according to a study that has not yet been reviewed by outside experts.

The report, published online, describes a 25-year-old man living in Reno, Nevada, who tested positive for the virus in April after showing mild illness. He got sick again in late May and developed more severe COVID-19, the disease caused by the virus.

"This study likely represents a clear example of reinfection ... reinfections are possible - which we already knew, because immunity is never 100%," Kristian Anderson, professor of immunology and microbiology at Scripps Research in La Jolla, California, said in an emailed comment.

Cases of presumed reinfection have cropped up in other parts of the world, but questions have arisen about testing accuracy. Earlier this week, University of Hong Kong researchers reported details of a 33-year-old man who had recovered in April from a severe case of COVID-19 and was diagnosed four months later with a different strain of the virus.

Researchers at the University of Nevada, Reno School of Medicine and the Nevada State Public Health Laboratory said they were able to show through sophisticated testing that the virus associated with each instance of the Reno man's infection represented genetically different strains.

They emphasized that reinfection with the virus is probably rare, but said the findings imply that initial exposure to the virus may not result in full immunity for everyone.

"We don't know at what frequency reinfections occur and how that might change over time," Anderson said. "Before we have broader studies illuminating these questions, we can't conclude what a single case of reinfection means for longevity and robustness of COVID-19 immunity and relevance for a future vaccine." (Reporting by Deena Beasley; Editing by Dan Grebler and Grant McCool)

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Read more:
First US novel coronavirus reinfection case identified in ... - Thomson Reuters Foundation

Blocking nerve signals to the pancreas halts type 1 diabetes onset in mice – Newswise

Newswise LA JOLLAYour pancreas is a little sweet potato-shaped organ that sits snug behind your stomach. The pancreas is studded with islets, the cell clusters that house insulin-producing beta cells. In people with type 1 diabetes, the body's own immune cells head for the islets and start attacking the beta cells. No one knows exactly what triggers this attack.

One clue may lie in the pattern of beta cell death. Many beta cells are killed off in big patches while other beta cells are mysteriously untouched. Something seems to be drawing immune cells to attack specific groups of beta cells while ignoring others.

In a new Science Advances study, researchers at La Jolla Institute for Immunology (LJI) report that the nervous system may be driving this patchy cell die-off. Their new findings in a mouse model suggest that blocking nerve signals to the pancreas could stop patients from ever developing type 1 diabetes.

"It's astonishing that this process may be stoppable through neuronal influence," says LJI Professor Matthias von Herrath, M.D., who served as the studys senior author.

The von Herrath Lab has been working to uncover the cause of type 1 diabetes. Although there are environmental and genetic risk factors for the disease, type 1 diabetes often seemingly strikes at random. Over the years, researchers have sought an explanation for the observed patchy pattern of cell death. One theory has been that these patches have differences in blood flow or they have been damaged by a virus that might be sparking an immune attack.

But recently, researchers have been exploring a new field called neuroimmunology, which is the idea that nerve signals can affect immune cells. Could nerve signals drive immune cells to attack certain areas of the pancreas?

"We thought that could explain a lot," says study first author Gustaf Christoffersson, Ph.D., a former LJI postdoctoral researcher now at the University Uppsala, Sweden.

To test this theory, the researchers used a mouse model that can be experimentally induced to have beta cell death. They "denervated" the mice, either surgically or through use of a neurotoxin or a pharmacological agent, to block most of the sympathetic nerve signals to the pancreas. The researchers then used LJI's world-class imaging facility to track the pattern of beta cell death in living mice.

The team found that blocking the nerve signals protected mice from beta cell death, compared with no effect in mice given no treatment and mice given only beta blockers. Without innervation, it was like the pancreas had gone dark and immune cells were unable to find their target.

"We were pretty surprised to see that these nerve blockers led to pretty significant differences in the onset of diabetes," says Christoffersson.

More work needs to be done before this method can be tested in people. Von Herrath explains that doctors would first need a reliable way to identify patients at risk of type 1 diabetes onset. Once these patients are identified, von Herrath believes they could be treated either through electrostimulation or drugs to block nerve signals. There are also non-surgical, intravascular methods for blocking nerve signals.

The new discovery might explain much more than the patchiness seen in type 1 diabetes. Several autoimmune diseases share this same patchinessbut in a symmetrical pattern. For example, the skin condition vitiligo causes skin to lose its pigment, often in symmetrical areas across the faces and hands. Arthritis also tends to strike symmetrically, with inflammation in both knee, elbow or wrist joints.

The new study suggests that these areas may be innervated by nerves that branch out symmetrically through the body.

"This symmetry is very striking, and it's been almost impossible to explain," says von Herrath.

Von Herrath thinks breakthroughs in neuroimmunology could have broad implications for explaining why the body turns against its own organs in many autoimmune diseases. Going forward, he and Christoffersson hope to investigate the cellular mechanisms that connect the nervous system and type 1 diabetes.

The study, "Interference with pancreatic sympathetic signaling halts the onset of diabetes in mice," was supported by the National Institutes of Health (R01 AI092453), the Swedish Research Council (2014-06840 and 2018-02314), the Swedish Society for Medical Research, the Gran Gustafsson Foundation, and the Science for Life Laboratory.

The study was co-authored by Sowbarnika S. Ratliff of LJI.

###

About La Jolla Institute for Immunology

The La Jolla Institute for Immunology is dedicated to understanding the intricacies and power of the immune system so that we may apply that knowledge to promote human health and prevent a wide range of diseases. Since its founding in 1988 as an independent, nonprofit research organization, the Institute has made numerous advances leading toward its goal: life without disease.

See the article here:
Blocking nerve signals to the pancreas halts type 1 diabetes onset in mice - Newswise

Scientists Explore Why Some People Are Able To Live With An Infection Unscathed – KPCW

One of the reasons Covid-19 has spread so swiftly around the globe is that for the first days after infection, people feel healthy. Instead of staying home in bed, they may be out and about, unknowingly passing the virus along. But in addition to these pre-symptomatic patients, the relentless silent spread of this pandemic is also facilitated by a more mysterious group of people: the so-called asymptomatics.

According to various estimates, between 20 and 45 percent of the people who get COVID-19 and possibly more, according to a recent study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention sail through a coronavirus infection without realizing they ever had it. No fever or chills. No loss of smell or taste. No breathing difficulties. They don't feel a thing.

Asymptomatic cases are not unique to COVID-19. They occur with the regular flu, and probably also featured in the 1918 pandemic, according to epidemiologist Neil Ferguson of Imperial College London. But scientists aren't sure why certain people weather COVID-19 unscathed. "That is a tremendous mystery at this point," says Donald Thea, an infectious disease expert at Boston University's School of Public Health.

The prevailing theory is that their immune systems fight off the virus so efficiently that they never get sick. But some scientists are confident that the immune system's aggressive response, the churning out of antibodies and other molecules to eliminate an infection, is only part of the story.

These experts are learning that the human body may not always wage an all-out war on viruses and other pathogens. It may also be capable of accommodating an infection, sometimes so seamlessly that no symptoms emerge. This phenomenon, known as disease tolerance, is well-known in plants but has only been documented in animals within the last 15 years.

Hints that 'disease tolerance' is at work

Disease tolerance is the ability of an individual, due to a genetic predisposition or some aspect of behavior or lifestyle, to thrive despite being infected with an amount of pathogen that sickens others. Tolerance takes different forms, depending on the infection. For example, when infected with cholera, which causes watery diarrhea that can quickly kill through dehydration, the body might mobilize mechanisms that maintain fluid and electrolyte balance. During other infections, the body might tweak metabolism or activate gut microbes whatever internal adjustment is needed to prevent or repair tissue damage or to make a germ less vicious.

"Why, if they have these abnormalities, are they healthy? Potentially because they have disease tolerance mechanisms engaged. These are the people we need to study." - Janelle Ayres, physiologist, Salk Institute for Biological Studies

Researchers who study these processes rely on invasive experiments that cannot be done in people. Nevertheless, they view asymptomatic infections as evidence that disease tolerance occurs in humans. At least 90 percent of those infected with the tuberculosis bacterium don't get sick. The same is true for many of the 1.5 billion of people globally who live with parasitic worms called helminths in their intestines. "Despite the fact that these worms are very large organisms and they basically migrate through your tissues and cause damage, many people are asymptomatic. They don't even know they're infected," says Irah King, a professor of immunology at McGill University. "And so then the question becomes, what does the body do to tolerate these types of invasive infections?"

While scientists have observed the physiological processes that minimize tissue damage during infections in animals for decades, it's only more recently that they've begun to think about them in terms of disease tolerance. For example, King and colleagues have identified specific immune cells in mice that increase the resilience of blood vessels during a helminth infection, leading to less intestinal bleeding, even when the same number of worms are present.

"This has been demonstrated in plants, bacteria, other mammalian species," King says.

"Why would we think that humans would not have developed these types of mechanisms to promote and maintain our health in the face of infection?" he adds.

Maybe germs aren't the enemy: A more nuanced view

In a recent Frontiers in Immunology editorial, King and his McGill colleague Maziar Divangahi describe their long-term hopes for the field: A deeper understanding of disease tolerance, they write, could lead to "a new golden age of infectious disease research and discovery."

Scientists have traditionally viewed germs as the enemy, an approach that has generated invaluable antibiotics and vaccines. But more recently, researchers have come to understand that the human body is colonized by trillions of microbes that are essential to optimal health, and that the relationship between humans and germs is more nuanced.

Meddlesome viruses and bacteria have been around since life began, so it makes sense that animals evolved ways to manage as well as fight them. Attacking a pathogen can be effective, but it can also backfire. For one thing, infectious agents find ways to evade the immune system. Moreover, the immune response itself, if unchecked, can turn lethal, applying its destructive force to the body's own organs.

"With things like COVID, I think it's going to be very parallel to TB, where you have this Goldilocks situation," says Andrew Olive, an immunologist at Michigan State University, "where you need that perfect amount of inflammation to control the virus and not damage the lungs."

Some of the key disease tolerance mechanisms scientists have identified aim to keep inflammation within that narrow window. For example, immune cells called alveolar macrophages in the lung suppress inflammation once the threat posed by the pathogen diminishes.

Much is still unknown about why there is such a wide range of responses to COVID-19, from asymptomatic to mildly sick to out of commission for weeks at home to full-on organ failure. "It's very, very early days here," says Andrew Read, an infectious disease expert at Pennsylvania State University who helped identify disease tolerance in animals. Read believes disease tolerance may at least partially explain why some infected people have mild symptoms or none at all. This may be because they're better at scavenging toxic byproducts, he says, "or replenishing their lung tissues at faster rates, those sorts of things."

Asymptomatic COVID-19 infections

The mainstream scientific view of asymptomatics is that their immune systems are especially well-tuned. This could explain why children and young adults make up the majority of people without symptoms because the immune system naturally deteriorates with age. It's also possible that the immune systems of asymptomatics have been primed by a previous infection with a milder coronavirus, like those that cause the common cold.

Asymptomatic cases don't get much attention from medical researchers, in part because these people don't go to the doctor and thus are tough to track down. But Janelle Ayres, a physiologist and infectious disease expert at the Salk Institute For Biological Studies who has been a leader in disease tolerance research, studies precisely the mice that don't get sick.

The staple of this research is something called the "lethal dose 50" test, which consists of giving a group of mice enough pathogen to kill half. By comparing the mice that live with those that die, she pinpoints the specific aspects of their physiology that enable them to survive the infection. She has performed this experiment scores of times using a variety of pathogens. The goal is to figure out how to activate health-sustaining responses in all animals.

A hallmark of these experiments and something that surprised her at first is that the half that survive the lethal dose are perky. They are completely unruffled by the same quantity of pathogen that kills their counterparts. "I thought going into this ... that all would get sick, that half would live and half would die, but that isn't what I found," Ayres says. "I found that half got sick and died, and the other half never got sick and lived."

Ayres sees something similar happening in the COVID-19 pandemic. Like her mice, asymptomatic people infected with the novel coronavirus seem to have similar amounts of the virus in their bodies as the people who fall ill, yet for some reason they stay healthy. Studies show that their lungs often display damage on CT scans, yet they are not struggling for breath (though it remains to be seen whether they will fully escape long-term impacts). Moreover, a small recent study suggests that people who are asymptomatic mount a weaker immune response than those who get sick suggesting that mechanisms are at work that have nothing to do with fighting infection.

"Why, if they have these abnormalities, are they healthy?" asks Ayres. "Potentially because they have disease tolerance mechanisms engaged. These are the people we need to study."

The goal of disease tolerance research is to decipher the mechanisms that keep infected people healthy and turn them into therapies that benefit everyone. "You want to have a drought-tolerant plant, for obvious reasons, so why wouldn't we want to have a virus-tolerant person?" Read asks.

A 2018 experiment in Ayres' lab offered proof of concept for that goal. The team gave a diarrhea-causing infection to mice in a lethal dose 50 trial, then compared tissue from the mice that died with those that survived, looking for differences. They discovered that the asymptomatic mice had utilized their iron stores to route extra glucose to the hungry bacteria, and that the pacified germs no longer posed a threat. The team subsequently turned this observation into a treatment. In further experiments, they administered iron supplements to the mice and all the animals survived, even when the pathogen dose was upped a thousandfold.

When the pandemic hit, Ayres was already studying mice with pneumonia and the signature malady of COVID-19, acute respiratory distress syndrome, which can be triggered by various infections. Her lab has identified markers that may inform candidate pathways to target for treatment. The next step is to compare people who progressed to severe stages of COVID-19 with those who are asymptomatic to see whether markers emerge that resemble the ones she's found in mice.

If a medicine is developed, it would work differently from anything that's currently on the market because it would be lung-specific, not disease-specific, and would ease respiratory distress regardless of which pathogen is responsible.

But intriguing as this prospect is, most experts caution that disease tolerance is a new field and tangible benefits are likely many years off. The work involves measuring not only symptoms but the levels of a pathogen in the body, which means killing an animal and searching all of its tissues. "You can't really do controlled biological experiments in humans," Olive says.

In addition, there are countless disease tolerance pathways. "Every time we figure one out, we find we have 10 more things we don't understand," King says. Things will differ with each disease, he adds, "so that becomes a bit overwhelming."

Nevertheless, a growing number of experts agree that disease tolerance research could have profound implications for treating infectious disease in the future. Microbiology and infectious disease research has "all been focused on the pathogen as an invader that has to be eliminated some way," says virologist Jeremy Luban of the University of Massachusetts Medical School. And as Ayres makes clear, he says, "what we really should be thinking about is how do we keep the person from getting sick."

Emily Laber-Warren directs the health and science reporting program at the Craig Newmark Graduate School of Journalism at CUNY.

This story was produced by Undark, a nonprofit, editorially independent digital magazine exploring the intersection of science and society.

Read the original:
Scientists Explore Why Some People Are Able To Live With An Infection Unscathed - KPCW

Author David Eagleman wants you to think much more about the brain – Houston Chronicle

Renowned Baylor College of Medicine neuroscientist and best-selling author, Dr. David Eagleman, will present two lectures at San Jacinto College South on March 28.

Before David Eagleman presents a single sentence of his own construction in Livewired, he lets it be known that the book, subtitled, The Inside Story of the Ever-Changing Brain, offers more than science. He does so with his choice of epigraph: Every man is born as many men and dies as a single one, written by philosopher Martin Heidegger.

Hopefully this book will open eyes to what it means to be a human, Eagleman says. We tend to think of ourselves as static. But in fact were changing all the time.

Eagleman has worked on Livewired over 10 years. The result is a text that is both probing, philosophical and playful, in which wounded British naval officer Horatio Nelson and tragic Spider-Man villain Dr. Otto Octavius appear in close proximity; where philosopher Ren Descartes and soulful country singer Ronnie Milsap are separated by just a few pages. With Livewired Eagleman hopes to educate about plasticity of the brain, a field of study he sees as equal to the deep study of DNA.

Heidegger out of the way, Eaglemans is a book that opens with hemispherectomy, a story about a child suffering from worsening seizures, whose family makes the fraught decision to have half of his brain removed.

by David Eagleman

Pantheon

320 pages, $28.95

I first started studying hemispherectomies 20 years ago and Im still stunned by the fact that we dont talk about this every day, Eagleman, 49, says. You watch the news every day Trump, weather patterns, things that are remarkable. But nothing like this. We dont know how to built technology like this. You cant tear circuitry out of a laptop and have it still function. You can do that with brains.

The books title is Eaglemans effort to put a recognizable name to further investigation into and discussion of the brain.

The brain is not, as we once thought, hardwired, he says. Its not hardware, its liveware.

We talk a lot about the heart. What the heart tells you, what your gut tells you. But its all brain. If you get a heart transplant, an artificial heart from the Texas Medical Center, youre still the same person. Change even a little bit of the brain and that can change a person entirely.

Long before he became a renowned neuroscientist, Eagleman was a literature student at Rice University, where he studied literature and its mechanisms for storytelling that hed later apply to his work. He studied at the Baylor College of Medicine and earned a PhD in neuroscience in 1998.

Immersed in research, Eagleman also found time for fiction. He wrote Sum: Forty Tales From the Afterlives in 2009. The book well-reviewed and a strong seller was a deeply philosophical piece of speculative fiction. Two years later, he landed on various best-seller lists with a book of science that proved inviting rather than daunting: Incognito: The Secret Lives of the Brain.

Like other storytellers in his line of work, Eagleman cites Carl Sagans Cosmos as an early influence. I was so caught up in it, he says. Here was a guy, a real scientist who cares about communicating the beauty and magic of this to me, some random kid sitting in front of the TV in New Mexico. I always wanted to be able to do that.

In addition to his lit workload, Eagleman took several philosophy courses while a student at Rice. For the most part he found them frustrating.

It felt to me like wed argue a question until it ended up in a quagmire and then everyone would stop there, he says.

He found a doorway past those stalled debates in neuroscience.

With neuroscience, you could ask fundamental questions about ourselves, he says. You could do experiments and achieve answers.

The brain has informed Eaglemans work since. Hes published several books and developed and hosted a TV series about the brain. He spent 10 years as director of a neuroscience research lab at the Baylor School of Medicine for a decade. And hes earned enough honors and accolades to keep his shelves and walls cluttered with totems of recognition.

He left Houston in 2016 for Silicon Valley. There he works as an adjunct professor at Stanford University, while also working entrepreneurial territory with the companies BrainCheck and NeoSensory. The latter sounds like something out of a Christopher Nolan film, claiming on its site that the companys research began with the idea that our experience of reality can go beyond our sensory limitations.

Eagleman sees biology as drafting off engineering for centuries now, with remarkable devices engineers build.

He envisions a future in which that engineering is reversed so we build livewired devices. That we do this thing we know is possible because each of us carries three pounds of incredible computational material in our heads.

Eagleman says Livewired is both the beginning and the end of something. He says it represents everything Ive done in my science career over the past 20 years.

While that phrase suggests a culmination of research, he insists its really the doorway to what comes next, which is why he finds himself in Silicon Valley. Livewired is a Cosmos-esque take on his lifes work.

While plenty of papers have been written about brain plasticity, he thinks his is the first comprehensive text that offers an overarching account of a field of study he believes warrants the same attention that greeted the Human Genome Project.

This really is lifes other secret, the other half we need to understand, he says. I think this topic, this area is as important as when Darwin published his theory of evolution. Its a major stepping stone. We get how we end up here genetically. To my mind, brain plasticity is the next step of that. Genetics gets put into the world. Then the organism is shaped by what happens to it. Humans are this incredible plastic species, more so than our neighbors in the animal kingdom. And its like Mother Natures great trick, and also a bit of a gamble on her part: dropping the brain into the world half baked. Let it figure out what to do there.

Eagleman encircles that notion the brain figuring it out throughout Livewired. He shows a grasp for narrative and pacing that mirrors his immersion into neuroscience. So the science is presented with anecdotal stories that are at times remarkable, like that of Matt Stutzmann, who was born with no arms. As he grew older, Stultzmann determined the absence of arms to be an obstacle but not a prohibitive condition to becoming a masterful archer.

Livewired is populated by people and stories that speak to Eaglemans assertion that old beliefs about a compartmental brain with different regions solely responsible for different tasks is outdated. That the brain is instead a dynamic system, capable of remarkable change and adaptation. He outlines his concept of livewiring into seven principles, all of which speak to adaptation by the brain to the world around it.

Through this study, Eagleman has gotten closer to answers he couldnt find in his philosophy classes in the early 90s. Which explains why Heidegger, rather than a scientist, gets the first word in a book that seeks to explain who we are.

As Eagleman writes, There is no you without the external. Your beliefs and dogmas and aspirations are shaped by it, inside and out, like a sculpture from a block of marble. Thanks to livewiring, each of us is the world.

andrew.dansby@chron.com

Andrew Dansby covers music and other entertainment, both local and national, for the Houston Chronicle, 29-95.com and chron.com. He previously assisted the editor for George R.R. Martin, author of "Game of Thrones" and later worked on three "major" motion pictures you've never seen. That short spell in the film business nudged him into writing, first as a freelancer and later with Rolling Stone. He came to the Chronicle in 2004 as an entertainment editor and has since moved to writing full time.

Andrew dislikes monkeys, dolphins and the outdoors. He has no pets.

Read more from the original source:
Author David Eagleman wants you to think much more about the brain - Houston Chronicle

Why Some People Over-Apologize, And Others Never Do – The Swaddle

As the #MeToo movement demonstrated, some people are so bad at apologies, that you find yourself resisting the urge to tell them to go back in time, and learn how to apologize. On the other hand, some of us are so over-apologetic, that we dont just apologize to inanimate objects we may have accidentally bumped into, but also feel the need to apologize for the actions of others that are beyond our control.

But, why do we apologize at all?Because human behavior is interdependent, people apologize when they have breached someones trust, or wronged them in any manner, with the objective of restoring their relationship. When one breaks a rule of social conduct, a subsequent apology re-establishes the rule by acknowledging that it was broken, and rebuilds trust in the individual wronged that the apologizer wont repeat their mistake again. Moreover, by validating the feelings of the person one wronged, an apology also shows care.

Over-apologizing, on the other hand, can stem from a myriad of formative childhood experiences. For some, over-apologizing is a way to avoid conflict, especially if they grew up in a household where conflict sparked screaming matches, or led to violence. It can also stem from a fear of abandonment. In terms of understanding the history behind one struggling to avoid conflict at all costs, Panthea Saidipour, a psychotherapist, noted that if one has witnessed conflicts being meted out with being iced out and given the cold shoulder, which for a kid can feel tantamount to being abandoned, one steers clear of situations that could spiral the same way by over-apologizing. [Apologizing] for having any needs at all, can stem from being raised by a parent, who had a low tolerance or even contempt for your needs, Saidipour added. This can also result in endeavors to constantly please people, and be perceived as a good person, since apologies minimize the negative repercussions of the incident and repair the actors damaged identity. As such, over-apologizing becomes an internalized coping mechanism.

Related on The Swaddle:

Indias #MeToo Apologies Are Rolling In. Do Any Warrant Forgiveness?

But, in addition to being a coping mechanism, apologizing repeatedly can also serve as a safety manoeuvre to keep oneself safe in abusive relationships. Also, experiencing a severely traumatic childhood, can sometimes, lead people to believe that they are the root cause ofall the terrible things happening around them, even after they grow up, causing them to over-apologize. Those who over-apologize often feel like a burden to others, as if their wants and needs are not important, Kelly Hendricks, a couple and family therapist in San Diego, told Psych Central, explaining how the behavior might also be a result of feeling unworthy.

Further, experts believe that anxiety can also lead to over-apologizing, as a means to manage emotions of fear, nervousness, and worry. It could also be a result of the spotlight effect, which generates extreme self-consciousness by making one believe that others are keeping close note of the minutest details of their failures. Over-apologizing can stem from being too hard on ourselves or beating ourselves up for things, Dr. Juliana Breines, an assistant professor of psychology at the University of Rhode Island, explained. In addition to anxiety, another mental health disorder that can lead people to over-apologize is OCD. Dr. Michael Alcee, clinical psychologist, explained that people with OCD are often very sensitive about harming others and about exhibiting overly-assertive or aggressive thought or action, and by apologizing excessively, they believe theyre undoing any harm they believe they may have caused.

And, while some people cannot stop apologizing, some simply dont apologize. Experts believe those who refrain from apologizing as much as possible, are prone to believe that apologies will open the floodgates to further accusations and conflict, and at the same time, relieve the other party of any culpability, Dr. Guy Winch, a clinical psychologist, noted. In order to offer a heartfelt apology, a person needs to have a solid platform of self-worth to stand on, Harriet Lerner, psychologist and author of Why Wont You Apologize?, told The Cut, adding that people whove done more harm, or are less self-aware, are constantly perched upon a small, rickety platform of self-worth, which makes apologizing difficult for them. Apologizing becomes a challenge for people when they have trouble separating their actions from their character, which makes accepting responsibility, or apologizing, threatening to their basic sense of self-esteem, and their identity.

Related on The Swaddle:

Could an Apology Cause Its Recipients More Harm Than Good? Perhaps.

Also, as studies have established over the years, women apologize more than men. In all cultures studied, men apologize less frequently than women. I think one of the greatest risks of being an under-apologizer is to be raised male, and the greatest risk of being an over-apologizer is being raised female, Lerner notes. Among other factors, researchers believe it is also a result of: first, menhaving a higher threshold for what constitutes offensive behavior, and therefore, requires an apology; and second, women caring more about how their actions emotionally affect people around them, which leads them to have a lower threshold for what requires an apology. And, that develops because, girls are more often rewarded for focusing on others feelings while boys are more often rewarded for asserting themselves, Dr. Stephen P. Hinshaw, psychologist, said.

Irrespective of whether one is a an over-apologizer, an under-apologizer, or simply, an individual who apologizes a regular amount, its important to remember that apologies are not only powerful, but also key to preserving our relationships with people we love. Apologies generate empathy. Apology has the ability to disarm others of their anger and to prevent further misunderstandings. While an apology cannot undo harmful past actions, if done sincerely and effectively, it can undo the negative effects of those actions, Beverly Engel, a psychotherapist and author ofThe Power of Apology,wrote in Psychology Today.

Continue reading here:
Why Some People Over-Apologize, And Others Never Do - The Swaddle

Don’t bank on herd immunity to save us from COVID-19 – Massive Science

There has recently been some speculation that the human population, or at least some segments of it, may already have had sufficient COVID-19 infections to achieve the protective effect of herd immunity. There are also new studies using computational modeling that suggest that the population levels of immunity needed for broad protection are lowerthan the most common estimates of 60-66% immune. While these new and hypothetical constructs of infection-acquired herd immunity show useful directions for the future of public health research for both COVID-19 and other infectious diseases, there are still too many unknowns to use these numbers to design active health policy.

As I wrote earlier this year:

Many hard hit communities, such as the Hasidic community in the Borough Park neighborhood of Brooklynand other urban neighborhoods in London and Mumbai, have already had a substantial number of infections within distinct spatially contained groups, leading people to speculate that they may have established a protective level of immunity within these areas. In addition, many researchers have developed mathematical models of the outbreak and have come up with values lower than the typical estimates of the population needed for herd immunity for COVID-19, ranging from about 43% to as low as 10-20%.

The classical calculation of herd immunity is based on the infectivity of the virus in question, definedby the mathematical expression, 1-(1/R0). R0 (R-naught) is the basic reproductive number of the virus, which is an indicator of how easily an infection is transmitted. This is an estimate of the number of secondary cases generated by an infectious individual at the start of a novel outbreak, when the rest of the population is susceptible. There are many difficulties in estimating R0 during an active outbreak, resulting in some wide variations in estimates over time anddata coming from different geographic locations. Early WHO estimates turned out to be too low, but the most widely used estimates R0 for SARS-CoV-2 now remain at around 2.5 to 3, meaning that one infectious person will infect 2.5 to 3 others. The calculated estimate based on a R0 of 2.5 to 3 results in 60-66% percent of people needing to have immunity before there is any herd immunity effect for the population.

Herd immunity helps reduce the likelihood of disease transmission from infected individuals to non-immune individuals. Immunity can be acquired from vaccines or, in many cases, previous infection and recovery from the infection.

U.S. Government Accountability Office on Flickr.

A mathematical model recently published by Tom Britton and colleagues in Science suggests that because population groups vary by factors including age and rates of social activity and contact, herd immunity could established through illness and recovery with only around 43% of the population,instead of the 60% required using a classical model assuming an R0 of 2.5.

While this type of mathematical model for herd immunity is theoretically interesting since it attempts to capture contextual factors and elements of population heterogeneity, it is still too early to be directly applied to public policy. Our current knowledge about SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) is incomplete, including a lack of information about how we may develop immunity and how long immunity will typically last.Mathematical modeling isalso based on broad assumptions that are often untested in the real world. Much more research is needed before we know if these new ideas about herd immunity should be applied to public health interventions and planning.

There are generally two broad categories of infectious disease models: mechanistic models, which use scientific understanding of disease dynamics and human behavior, and statistical models, which rely only on patterns in the data

U.S. Government Accountability Office on Flickr.

The most striking example of how fast our understanding can change is the recent confirmation of a reinfection with a second case of COVID-19 after four and a half months in Hong Kong.Unlike earlier reports of reinfection, which were mainly anecdotal, this case was confirmed based on viral genome sequencing, showing that the second infection was from a genetically distinct strain. This suggests that reinfection is an important possibility and that immunity acquired through illness and recovery may last only months. This new case adds additional elements of uncertainty to Britton and colleagues model, since the authors state that their current model was designed based on the assumption that infection with and subsequent clearance of the virus leads to immunity against further infection for an extended period of time.

Reinfection and the typical duration of immunity are not the only uncertainties. It also remains unclear to what degree immunity is antibody-mediated versus cell-mediated, whichkinds of antibodies are most important, whether immunity might prevent future disease or only make reinfections less severe, and whether prior exposure to common cold coronaviruses offer any protection. Immune response also may depend on characteristics beyond age, including biological sex and individual genetic variation, and other factors. The data available is often incomplete, meaning that mathematical models may be based on biased samples; underreporting of data has been high, and areas without sufficient testingdo not provide adequate data.

There are also a number of difficulties inherent in using the basic reproductive rate to predict disease spread, and it is difficult to disentangle the basic rate R0 from the actual transmission rate (Rt), which is impacted by changes in behavior and in population immunity over time. If done properly, all of the measures meant to control the virus, including lockdowns, social distancing, business closures, travel bans, mask wearing, and contact tracing, will reduce the transmission. While this is a good thing for the publics health, it makes the data collected ambiguous: has disease transmission has been slowed by public health measures, or is it waning naturally?

Current estimates suggest that a person infected with COVID-19 will, on average, pass the virus to 2-3 other people.

United Nations COVID-19 Response on Unsplash.

There are also speculations that the amount of virus a person contacts impacts the severity of illness (this is known asa dose-response relationship), potentially explaining why masking is effective. It is still unclear to what degree seasonality plays a role in transmission, and more research is needed on the exact mechanisms of virus spread and persistence in the air and the role of indoor conditions such as humidity, temperature, and ventilation. Finally, once a vaccine becomes available, it will impact herd immunity, though the results will depend both on the effectiveness and the distribution of any future vaccines as well as whether people are willing to get the vaccine at all.

Throughout this pandemic, the concept of herd immunity has been frequent fodder for wishful thinking. Some countries, including Britain and Sweden, attempted to rely on herd immunity rather than implementing broad control measures. Now Britain has reconsidered this plan, and Sweden has sustained much larger spread of the disease and greater number of deaths than its neighbors.

In the United States, wishful thinking about the virus disappearing on its ownhas delayed needed intervention and prompted premature reopening. Pandemic control measures have many unpleasant side effects, and herd immunity can be an appealing concept for those who seek reassurance that the world will eventually return to normal, but our best way forward requires an understanding that conducting quality research and applying it effectively to policy take time and a great deal of work.

Go here to read the rest:
Don't bank on herd immunity to save us from COVID-19 - Massive Science

I’m a Body Language Expert. Here’s What I Saw During the Conventions. – POLITICO

At the beginning of Joe Bidens speech, we see the tension of the moment when he does whats called a hard swallow. Even for a gifted speaker who is used to public speaking, this is still a tense moment, as he accepts the nomination. And, for a split second, in spite of his broad, friendly smile, it shows in that one small facial distortion. He compresses his lips after saying, Ill be proud to carry the banner of our party into the general election. With the audio on, you can hear his voice crack slightly, again a result of the natural tension one would expect from such an event. Its obvious that he takes seriously the gravity of whats happening. Hes been preparing all his life for this moment. Its not a stutter or age-related thing, just a subconscious behavior that speakers use to deal with a little bit of stress when we say something of emotional magnitude.

Notice here the squinting of his eyes and the finger pointing. He does this for emphasis, to demonstrate that what he is saying is important, it has gravitas. The furrowing of his glabella, the area between the eyes, conveys that what he is saying should be troubling. Even without sound, you know hes serious about something. When I turn the sound on to see what he said, its: The president still does not have a plan. Well I do. He says these last three words with a firm, assertive voice that makes us pay attention.

We are trained to look at the glabella even as babies. You can do this as an experiment to see it in action: If you furrow your glabella and squint your eyes at a baby, theyll react negatively, probably with crying. From a very young age, were primed to look at this section of the face to gauge whether everything is okay, and when we see this particular look, we recognize it as a serious face.

Notice how Senator Kamala Harris is compressing the lips on each corner of her mouth. This is indicative of disdain and, in this case, as I listened then to the video, for those who would harbor racists views. This is the moment where she says, there is no vaccine for racism. We pinch the corner of the mouth to say nonverbally, Im not satisfied. The moment I saw it, I knew she was saying she was not happy with something. And it turned out I was right. When she talks about racism, shes saying that its just not okay the same way a parent might convey a similar message to a misbehaved child.

When Nancy Pelosi is speaking, notice she arches her eyebrows. This is what I like to call the human exclamation point. Its a gravity defying behavior: We only expend energy when we are passionate about something, and in this case, shes describing how proud she is of the size of her caucus and how many women are in it. She wants the viewer to pay attention to her confidence, and by repeatedly arching her eyebrows, she says: Dont just listen to my words, listen to my body language as well. She finishes her speech with a steeple, the finger points together, which is another sign of confidence.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was only given a very short segment in the DNC, but when it came to her nonverbal presentation, she was very effective. Without listening to what shes saying, you can see that shes a good speaker. Unlike Biden, her eyes are wide open and relaxed. What this tells the viewer is that she is confident and comfortable with what she is saying, and thats really important in public speaking. What we look for as viewers without even knowing were looking for it is whether the speaker makes us comfortable. Thats often conveyed through body language. Ocasio-Cortez is clearly adept with this medium, and it shows in her body language.

Most importantly, shes not overly dramatic; shes not raising her voiceand you can tell even without the sound. Her comfort here should make viewers comfortableand perhaps opponents uncomfortable.

As the camera follows Jill Biden in a classroom, we notice how comfortable she is in this setting, how fluidly she moves and speaks, as if she has done this all her life. Our brains react to movement with an orientation reflex that basically follows any movement, so her walking makes us pay attention to her. We can also appreciate that she comes from a working background, by the environment she has chosen. It humanizes her.

With the wave of a hand, she communicates this is my realm. Its a welcoming gesture. In this particular moment, we also see that her thumbs are in the up position, which we do to let others know that we are speaking with confidence. Shes letting people know that she is confident that she fits right in and that we should be confident with her as a public figure.

Michelle Obama uses a number of hand gestures to emphasize, to demark, to point, to chop effectively, all of which add to the message she is sending. Because its on a Zoom-like medium and not on a stage, these behaviors are elevated to be in frame, but it doesnt look contrived. Whatever she is saying, you know it is important. It made her deliverysaying that we have got to vote like our lives depend on itmore impactful.

Here we see a very powerful gesture with Kimberly Guilfoyles hands spread out wide away from the body, fingers spreading apart for emphasis. These kinds of gestures scream for attention and contribute to understanding the intensity of sentiment expressed. One cannot look away.

However, a very expansive gesture is great if youre in an auditorium, but here you have a small screen. Even the cameraman or director noticed that and switched to a wider shot. Similarly, you can tell even with the sound off that shes talking in a very loud voice. It feels discordant in this setting. This manner of presentation is too theatrical. Performances need to meet the audience, and if theres no audience there, you should shape your performance around that. Most people dont remember what politicians say, but we remember the presentation. Its interesting to me that a woman who has always taken care of how she presents herself, including as a TV host, didnt register that her message would be better conveyed if it were more suited to the format. Viewers register the disconnect, and thats what sticks with them.

During his convention speech, Don Jr. tilts his head, cocking it slightly and squinting his eyes while at the same time making a wide gesture with his hands. Together, it conveys that hes incredulous or suspicious about something. His body language communicates something to the effect of saying sarcastically, Can you believe that? In reality, at this particular moment, he says: People of faith are under attack. Youre not allowed to go to church. But mass chaos in the streets gets a pass. Some of these behaviors, like his slight twitch of the head and askance facial expression, are so fast that theyre whats called tachykinesic. We dont consciously realize that we notice it, but it registers subconsciously.

Senator Tim Scott is clearly a very dynamic speaker. Here we see two behaviors of interest: the furrowing of the glabella that communicates that he is troubled by something (even before he emphasizes that again with the shake of his head), and the pinched thumb and index finger, which is called a precision grip. This is usually used to indicate we are thinking about or articulating something very precisely. Both behaviors add to the message making it more powerful. He also emphasizes his message by leaning in slightly, and he punctuates it by arching his eyebrows, like Pelosi did. The viewer understands without even hearing his speech that he is an important figure with an important message.

What was most noticeable about Melania Trumps speech was that she appeared to be someone who is not used to public speaking. We have to keep in mind that maybe this is not a role she would have wished for, but she is obviously willing to give it her best. Shes clearly reading from a teleprompter, and you see some tension in her face and neck that conveys some nervousness and straining. If you were to show this to an audience unfamiliar with who she is, they might say that she looks a little stressed. I dont want to speculate too much, but the question our brains ask is: Do we see a high degree of comfort? And, politics aside, I dont think we do. We dont see a relaxed face.

What does that ultimately mean? Politics will still dictate how people felt about this, but as an ethologist, someone who studies behavior, I dont think her tension depends on what she had to say but rather on the fact that she had to do this at all. She may not be uncomfortable with the message, but she appears very uncomfortable with the setting.

Kellyanne Conways speech struck me as really strange, because we know she is used to speaking to the public. Here, her arms were stuck to the side of her body, which is not normal for her. She knows how to convey effective messaging, but this is not that. The energy and emphasis that we would normally see is lacking. The human brain seeks to see the hands, and public speakers usually use that to communicate effectively. Ive seen her talk to the media at the White House, but here we see a much more restrained face, and, most noticeably, her arms dont leave her side. You can speculate all you want about what psychological forces might have been acting on her, but what matters to me is that the presentation was unusual and the audience registers that, even if they cant articulate it.

Rep. Dan Crenshaws segment was another that was very effective in terms of nonverbal communication. On mute, his gestures are very relaxed and comforting, and when you turn the sound on, his tone of voice affirms that. His cadence simultaneously puts the viewer at ease and commands their attention. He comes across as cool, calm and collected. The stagecraft also evokes patriotism in a way that makes a lapel flag pin that nearly everyone else feels compelled to wear unnecessary. You understand that he served his country.

As a speaker, it is clear he is confident, and his gesturesopen palms in the vertical receptive positionare consistent with his message. All of whats communicated nonverbally here says: Listen to me because Im important. He does it really well, and without knowing anything about him or his politics, I can tell that hes a leader.

Rudy Giuliani pinches the corners of his mouth slightly, which is a signal of disdain or contempt. When I listened back, I saw that he was talking about progressive Democrats. Anytime you see air quotes, you know someones introducing something theyre going to ridicule, and then you see that reaffirmed with the pinching of his lips. You also can tell that he turns his head a little bit askance, like Don. Jr. did.

While there was no shortage of commentary about Melania Trumps facial expression when Ivanka Trump joined the stage at the White House before Donald Trumps speech, I think many people were reading too much into the moment. It may have appeared like she was betraying some deeper feelings about her daughter-in-law. But in this case, I believe the simplest explanation is likely the right one: that Melanias smile momentarily lapsed as she turned her head. Its certainly awkward on camera, but overall, the First Lady appears much more relaxed and comfortable standing alongside her husband in front of a crowd than she did earlier when she had to speak on his behalf.

You can also see the contempt conveyed during President Donald Trumps speech with the pinching of his lips. When you turn the sound on, you hear that hes talking about mayhem in Democratic cities. But what stands out the most from his performance is the way he leans against the podium. It conveys that this is a very comfortable kind of space for Trump, and you dont really see it in this kind of public speaking. Normally, a president isnt this relaxed. Its more common with smaller groupsfor example, a professor speaking to a class might take on this position. Hes not just holding the podium but putting his weight on it, which you can see by the angle of his shoulders. For viewers, the White House is something almost reverent, and we are primed to want to see nonverbal communication consistent with the highest office. When we see behavior like this, it feels discordant and not very presidential.

Obviously, there are people who like that about Trump, who like that he doesnt adhere to traditional notions of respectability but rather conveys open disdain for Democrats. Is he too cavalier? Thats up to the politics of the viewer. Theres no disagreement that all people are clearly receiving the message hes giving off.

Read the original post:
I'm a Body Language Expert. Here's What I Saw During the Conventions. - POLITICO

Game Theory Explains the Pandemic – India Currents

The COVID-19 spell has left governments, markets, and civil society wobbling through disruptions and damage. The ambiguity that envelops not only the evolution of the disease but also its impact makes it a challenging and complex task for policymakers to devise a suitable policy response.

The pandemic has brought to the forefront some key ethical questions that we must explore. The Human gene is thought of as the most skilled of making a choice based on free will, on reason and rationality. From the study of human behavior, it is widely known that the current setting can be related to the behavior of people, the choices they make, and the human tendency for cognitive error, to be able to forecast patterns and design effective interventions.

Today, the whole world stands on the edge, geopolitics at a cusp, policymakers in a dilemma, to generate an appropriate policy response. This is the classic case for strategic thinking and can, therefore, draw on insights from behavioral economics and game theory. The former is a field of social sciences that is a blend of economics and psychology and looks into human decision-making behaviors, whereas the latter is the study of models based on strategic interactions between players, on rational choice and on maximizing behavior by the people.

In the context of the pandemic, the questions that come to ones mind are:

Game theory is the science of strategy that deals with outcomes that are produced by interactions, based on the behavior of the players. It is a tool to study interactions in the context of interdependencies.

A game is any situation involving two or more players in which the fate of each player depends not only on her actions but also on the actions of the other players. Some notable points are:

The main ingredients of a Game:

The novel Covid-19 pandemic seems like a real-time situation that can be fitted well into the basic game theory model called the Prisoners Dilemma. The prisoners dilemma is basically a game in which there is an incentive to make a choice that may not produce the best possible or optimal outcome for the group as a whole.

Some aspects of this pandemic reflect the same premise, such as the decision to maintain social distancing during a pandemic looks a lot like a move in a multiplayer form of this game. One can either cooperate, and do something that costs a little while helping those around, or deviate, and bring one, a small benefit but at a greater cost to those around oneself.

If one maintains social distancing, it is not necessary that he/she will not contract the virus as it also depends on what others are doing. Thus, it is a game-there are strategic interactions.

Let us say, we have a two-player Prisoners dilemma game. Both players A and B have two choices. Choice C, in which both choose to maintain social distancing and hence cooperate and, choice D, where they both deflect and do not social distance. The payoff matrix is given below:

Player B

Player A

The efficient outcome is (C, C) with respective payoffs (5,5). This occurs when they both agree to cooperate and maintain social distancing. This is the result of Collective rationality. The outcome (5,5) is preferred by both (everyone) but is unstable in that each person has an incentive to cheat there is a temptation to go out when everyone is locked inside their respective homes. However, here both the players have a unilateral incentive to deflect and this outcome becomes unstable and fragile. Each player becomes vulnerable to the so-called selfish gene inside of him and has an urge to cheat and deviate and thus get a higher payoff for oneself. If A falls prey to this temptation, thinking that B would have done the same and drops the precaution of social distancing, then he gets a small benefit (8,0) but at the cost to others in the society. If player B is led off by the temptation to deviate assuming that A would have reacted in the same way and decides not to distance himself, then likewise his payoff is (0,8).

Thus, the Unique dominant (or rational) strategy for each person is Not to Cooperate. There arises a tension between Individual Rationality and Collective Rationality. Individual Rationality leads them to settle at the optimal outcome, where both them end up in deviating with lower payoffs for themselves at (1,1) and a higher risk of getting the virus. This in fact is what is called the Nash equilibrium. Cooperation gets destroyed by the Art of War and paradoxically non-cooperation becomes the dominant strategy.

Ironically, the biggest debate rattling the world is that which political power would emerge as the winner in this COVID stirred race for dominance.

Questions that come to the ground are, whether a country should cooperate with others and share the results of its innovative practices or not? How to get from (1,1) to (5,5)? That is, how can one make a good outcome happen? This requires Cooperation and Trust.

Is there a need for a third party to enforce the peace, to enforce cooperation, to enforce a lockdown? Yes, perhaps and the third party can be the Sovereign (i.e., the State)?

What are the payoffs and the costs?

What should be the geo-political policy response?

Here lies the tight-spot faced by policymakers today

In the current times, the main players are the citizens and the governments whose choices make a difference and to a large extent play a vital role in checking the pandemic, which had constructed the game theory model in question, in the first place. COVID-19 will reshape our world. We dont yet know when the crisis will end. But we can be sure that by the time it does, our world will look very different. How different will depend on the choices we make today. Every stakeholders choice is an externality for others.

Global pandemics need global solutions.Radicalscaling up of international cooperation among scientists, economists and policy-makers is the need of the hour. A cooperative strategy by all the players in the Covid-Game is the optimum one. It is the Nash equilibrium, in the Covid-induced policy-cogmaire!

Malini Sharma is the Senior Assistant Professor and Head of the Department of Economics at the Daulat Ram College, University of Delhi in India.

More people are reading India Currents than ever but advertising revenues across the media are falling fast. And unlike many news organizations, we havent put up a paywall we want to keep our journalism as open as we can.

So you can see why we need to ask for your help. Our independent, community journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce. But we do it because we believe our perspective matters because it might well be your perspective, too.

If everyone who reads our reporting, who likes it, helps fund it, our future would be much more secure. You can support us via our nonprofit arm, India Currents Foundation and it takes just a moment to give.

See more here:
Game Theory Explains the Pandemic - India Currents