Finally, we highlight a crucial difference of the proposed method to traditional strategies. Unlike conventional quarantine, this intervention involves isolating healthy individuals from the rest of the infection network. At first this might sounds absurd: ''Why isolate healthy people and not the infected ones?'' From network point of view, however, the reason is clear: by isolating these people we are intercepting the path of an ongoing epidemic. As comparison, it is a standard practice in controlling forest fire to cut or burn down trees ahead of advancing fire to contain it. For infectious diseases no one has imagined this intervention possible, but with an estimated infection network our proof-of-concept results are impressive. If all nodes on the entire estimated network are isolated, the results are even more impressive: for our N = 10,000 network with ,k. = 10, we find propagating epidemics in only 60% of the simulations. In these propagating epidemics, the epidemic peak with intervention is less than 1/10 the epidemic peak without intervention, while the total number of infections with intervention is 1/3 that without intervention. Also, instead of peaking at t = 12 and ending at t = 20 without intervention, the epidemic peaks at t = 28 and ends at t = 60 with intervention. In terms of actual durations, removing all nodes on the estimated network stretches two-month epidemics to over half a year. However, about 1/4 of the population needs to be isolated, compared to only about 9% of the population for EGP intervention. A separate systematic study will be necessary to understand how effective and efficient this more aggressive intervention strategy can be.