  Epidemics of infectious diseases posing a serious risk to human health have
occurred throughout history. During the ongoing SARS-CoV-2 epidemic there has
been much debate about policy, including how and when to impose restrictions on
behavior. Under such circumstances policymakers must balance a complex spectrum
of objectives, suggesting a need for quantitative tools. Whether health
services might be 'overwhelmed' has emerged as a key consideration yet formal
modelling of optimal policy has so far largely ignored this. Here we show how
costly interventions, such as taxes or subsidies on behaviour, can be used to
exactly align individuals' decision making with government preferences even
when these are not aligned. We assume that choices made by individuals give
rise to Nash equilibrium behavior. We focus on a situation in which the
capacity of the healthcare system to treat patients is limited and identify
conditions under which the disease dynamics respect the capacity limit. In
particular we find an extremely sharp drop in peak infections as the maximum
infection cost in the government's objective function is increased. This is in
marked contrast to the gradual reduction without government intervention. The
infection costs at which this switch occurs depend on how costly the
intervention is to the government. We find optimal interventions that are quite
different to the case when interventions are cost-free. Finally, we identify a
novel analytic solution for the Nash equilibrium behavior for constant
infection cost.
