In this task, you're given a paragraph and title from the research paper. Your task is to classify whether the given title is suitable or not for the research paper based on the given paragraph. Return "True" if title is proper according to paragraph else "False".

[Q]: Paragraph: As infectious disease outbreaks emerge, public health agencies often enact vaccination and social distancing measures to slow transmission. Their success depends on not only strategies and resources, but also public adherence. Individual willingness to take precautions may be influenced by global factors, such as news media, or local factors, such as infected family members or friends. Here, we compare three modes of epidemiological decisionmaking in the midst of a growing outbreak using network-based mathematical models that capture plausible heterogeneity in human contact patterns. Individuals decide whether to adopt a recommended intervention based on overall disease prevalence, the proportion of social contacts infected, or the number of social contacts infected. While all strategies can substantially mitigate transmission, vaccinating (or self isolating) based on the number of infected acquaintances is expected to prevent the most infections while requiring the fewest intervention resources. Unlike the other strategies, it has a substantial herd effect, providing indirect protection to a large fraction of the population. misinformation from the "anti-vaxxer" movement [8, [11] [12] [13] . Recently, there have been calls for a special government commission on vaccine safety, despite overwhelming scientific consensus that vaccines are both safe and effective [12, [14] [15] [16] . As outbreaks unfold, people can take a variety precautionary measures to avoid infection, including immunization and social distancing [1, [17] [18] [19] . They often judge personal risk based on their impressions of overall disease prevalence and severity [2, [20] [21] [22] [23] . When infection risk appears low, small risks of adverse effects from the vaccine can seem relatively important and cause vaccine coverage to drop below levels required to control transmission. A variety of other factors can influence the perceived utility of disease prevention, including epidemiological news and rumors, costs of vaccination and other control measures, trust in health professionals, government agencies, media and non-official information sources, as well as societal pressure to ensure the health of one's children [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] . Studies have shown that media reports about outbreaks that specify numbers of cases, hospitalizations or deaths, can influence avoidance behavior and contact patterns at both individual and community levels. In some cases, oversimplified or erroneous media reports regarding flawed vaccines can trigger panic and increases in vaccine hesitancy [30] [31] [32] [33] . For both seasonal and pandemic influenza, such interactions between vaccination decision-making and transmission dynamics can profoundly shape the course of epidemics [20, [34] [35] [36] . Individual intervention decisions can have far-reaching effects. For example, vaccination protects not only the immunized individual, but also social contacts who might have been infected by the individual. Social distancing decisions may break chains of transmission by protecting the decision-maker and more generally disrupting social dynamics. Following [37, 38] , we refer to this indirect protection as a herd effect. Although previously equated to the reduction in incidence in the unimmunized population [38], we quantify the herd effect of an intervention effort by estimating the number of infections averted per vaccine administered (or per individual social distancing action). The general phenomenon in which individual intervention actions reduce the risk of infection to others has also been called vaccination efficiency, vaccination effectiveness, herd immunity, and indirect protection [37] [38] [39] [40] . The magnitude of the herd effect will critically depend on contact patterns [41, 42]. Measures taken by gregarious individuals may have greater immediate benefits than those taken by solitary individuals, with downstream epidemiological consequences modulated by the full social network [43, 44] . Contact patterns may also influence the decision-making process itself, by constraining epidemiological perspectives. When gauging infection risk, individuals may consider global information (e.g., from news media) or local first-hand encounters with disease (e.g., infected acquaintances, friends or family members) [30, 31] . While traditional compartmental models assume homogeneity in both epidemiological risks and intervention benefits, network-based models provide a tractable framework for studying the complex interplay between contact networks, intervention decision making and disease transmission [34, [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] . Here, we investigate the epidemiological impacts of different decision paradigms using a network-based SIR epidemic model, in which individuals also make vaccination or social distancing choices based on their perceived epidemiological risks. Depending on the decision model, they estimate either overall disease prevalence, their number of infected social contacts, or their fraction of infected social contacts. When the perceived threat is sufficiently high, they take a measure that immediately affords full protection for the duration of the epidemic. We compare the efficacy of these three different paradigms across a range of diseases in a realistically heterogeneous network, and show that the most naive model-simply counting one's infected contacts-affords the most epidemiological protection using the least amount of resources (e.g., vaccinations or economic costs associated with social distancing). Local risk perception enhances epidemic control PLOS ONE | https://doi. 
 Title: Local risk perception enhances epidemic control
[A]: True


[Q]: Paragraph: The open reading frame 3 of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) genome encodes a predicted protein 3a, consisting of 274 amino acids, that lacks any significant similarities to any known protein. We generated specific antibodies against SARS protein 3a by using a synthetic peptide (P2) corresponding to amino acids 261-274 of the putative protein. Anti-P2 antibodies and the sera from SARS patients could specifically detect the recombinant SARS protein 3a expressed in Escherichia coli and in Vero E6 cells. Expression of SARS protein 3a was detected at 8-12 h after infection and reached a higher level after $24 h in SARS-CoV-infected Vero E6 cells. Protein 3a was also detected in the alveolar lining pneumocytes and some intra-alveolar cells of a SARS-CoVinfected patient's lung specimen. Recombinant protein 3a expressed in Vero E6 cells and protein 3a in the SARS-CoVinfected cells was distributed over the cytoplasm in a fine punctate pattern with partly concentrated staining in the Golgi apparatus. Our study demonstrates that SARS-CoV indeed expresses a novel protein 3a, which is present only in SARS-CoV and not in other known CoVs. 
 Title: Identification of a novel protein 3a from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus
[A]: False


[Q]: Paragraph: The family flaviviridae and alphaviridae contain a diverse group of pathogens that cause significant morbidity and mortality worldwide. Diagnosis of the virus responsible for disease is essential to ensure patients receive appropriate clinical management. Very few real-time RT-PCR based assays are able to detect the presence of all members of these families using a single primer and probe set. We have developed a novel chemistry, 3base, which simplifies the viral nucleic acids allowing the design of RT-PCR assays capable of pan-family identification. Synthetic constructs, viral nucleic acids, intact viral particles and characterised reference materials were used to determine the specificity and sensitivity of the assays. Synthetic constructs demonstrated the sensitivities of the pan-flavivirus detection component were in the range of 13 copies per PCR. The pan-alphavirus assay had a sensitivity range of 10-25 copies per reaction depending on the viral strain. Lower limit of detection studies using whole virus particles demonstrated that sensitivity for assays was in the range of 1-2 copies per reaction. No cross reactivity was observed with a number of commonly encountered viral strains. Proficiency panels showed 100% concordance with the expected results and the assays performed as well as, if not better than, other assays used in laboratories worldwide. After initial assay validation the pan-viral assays were then tested during the 2016-2017 Vanuatu dengue-2 outbreak. Positive results were detected in 116 positives from a total of 187 suspected dengue samples. 
 Title: Validation of the easyscreen flavivirus dengue alphavirus detection kit based on 3base amplification technology and its application to the 2016/17 Vanuatu dengue outbreak
[A]:
True