On Backward Induction Paradox

Only abstract. Paper copies of master’s theses are listed in the Helka database (http://www.helsinki.fi/helka). Electronic copies of master’s theses are either available as open access or only on thesis terminals in the Helsinki University Library.Vain tiivistelmä. Sidottujen gradujen saatavuuden voit tarkistaa Helka-tietokannasta (http://www.helsinki.fi/helka). Digitaaliset gradut voivat olla luettavissa avoimesti verkossa tai rajoitetusti kirjaston opinnäytekioskeilla.Endast sammandrag. Inbundna avhandlingar kan sökas i Helka-databasen (http://www.helsinki.fi/helka). Elektroniska kopior av avhandlingar finns antingen öppet på nätet eller endast tillgängliga i bibliotekets avhandlingsterminaler.In this master's thesis some solutions to the backward induction paradox as well as some ways to regain the paradox are examined. Backward induction is a method to solve finite, extensive games of perfect information.The main idea is, roughly, that the players choose the best outcome at each nonterminal node of the game, starting from the last node and proceeding backward until the initial node is reached. The backward induction argument states that a rational player who shares the common knowledge of (or belief in) rationality, in a certain kind of games, chooses to end the game at each of his nonterminal nodes. Lately, the viability of backward induction argument has been questioned. The problem is that acting according to backward induction argument may lead to an undesirable outcome. This is known as the backward induction paradox. The solution proposals to the paradox assert that the assumption of common knowledge of (or belief in) rationality is the cause of the problems of the backward induction argument. However, these solutions can be shown to be fallacious and the backward induction paradox can be regained in several ways. The conclusion of this thesis is that, although the paradox remains unsolved, the studies on the backward induction paradox have been constructive; the argumentation has revealed a number of interesting properties concerning important assumptions behind the backward induction argument. Especially, the assumptions concerning players' rationality, common knowledge of rationality and counterfactual reasoning have turned out to be crucial in the backward induction argument

Finnish HIV Quality of Care Register (FINHIV)

Purpose The Finnish HIV Quality of Care Register (FINHIV) was created to: (1) estimate the number of people living with HIV (PLWH) in Finland, (2) evaluate the national level of antiretroviral medication use and viral suppression, (3) examine the change in the HIV epidemic in Finland to pinpoint issues to address and (4) enable evaluation of the health of the PLWH by combining the FINHIV data with other national healthcare data. Participants The FINHIV includes all people diagnosed or being treated for HIV infection in Finland since 1984. The register was formed in 2020 by combining data from the National Infectious Diseases Register (information from time of diagnosis, data from 1984) and from the 21 HIV Clinics that treat HIV-positive patients in Finland (earliest data from 1998). The register population forms a nationwide, open cohort with yearly updates; currently it consists of 4218 PLWH (including 718 deceased) with HIV diagnosed or treated in Finland 1984-2019. Current rate of new cases is 150 cases/year. Findings to date From the FINHIV data, we can confirm that Finland has reached the Joint United Nations Programme for HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) 90-90-90 targets set for 2020, and that the proportion of virally suppressed is constant between all 21 HIV Clinics in Finland, despite their varying size. Linkage to care is estimated at 94.3% of those diagnosed. In contrast to the treatment results, more than half of the PLWH have been diagnosed at a late stage, and the proportion has increased since 2000. Future plans Combinations of FINHIV data with other national healthcare register data in Finland will provide further information on other aspects of the health of the PLWH in a high-resource setting (eg, comorbidities, sexual health and use of healthcare resources). Additionally, implementation of patient-reported experience and outcome measures within the FINHIV is ongoing.Peer reviewe