# You are risk neutral, and care only about your income. With prob...

## Question

With probability p, you will catch a disease that reduces your income from y, its level when you are healthy, to y-k, where k > 0. A vaccine is available, at cost c, that reduces the probability of your catching the disease from p to q<p.

a) Suppose that you know the values of p, q, y, k, and c, so that the only thing about which you are uncertain is whether you will catch the disease. Write the condition that determines whether or not you should buy the vaccine.

b) Now suppose that you know y, k, and c, but neither p nor q . Which is more relevant to your decision, the percentage amount by which the vaccine reduces the probability of catching the disease (what is usually reported in the press), or the absolute amount? Explain.

c) How do your answers to (a) and (b) change if you are a risk-averse expected-utility maximizer?

## Solution Preview

These solutions may offer step-by-step problem-solving explanations or good writing examples that include modern styles of formatting and construction of bibliographies out of text citations and references. Students may use these solutions for personal skill-building and practice. Unethical use is strictly forbidden.

Expected (Net) Income:
(1 - p)y + p(y – k) No Vaccine
(1 – q)(y – c) + q(y – c – k) Vaccine

Vaccinate if:
(1 - p)y + p(y – k) < (1 – q)(y – c) + q(y – c – k)

(1 – p + p)y – pk < (1 – q + q)(y – c) – qk...

By purchasing this solution you'll be able to access the following files:
Solution.docx.

# 50% discount

Hours
Minutes
Seconds
\$18.00 \$9.00
for this solution

or FREE if you
register a new account!

PayPal, G Pay, ApplePay, Amazon Pay, and all major credit cards accepted.

### Find A Tutor

View available Decision Theory Tutors

Get College Homework Help.

Are you sure you don't want to upload any files?

Fast tutor response requires as much info as possible.