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".

Paragraph: The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic poses an enormous challenge to healthcare systems in affected communities. Older patients and those with pre-existing medical conditions have been identified as populations at risk of a severe disease course. It remains unclear at this point to what extent chronic liver diseases should be considered as risk factors, due to a shortage of appropriate studies. However, patients with advanced liver disease and those after liver transplantation represent vulnerable patient cohorts with an increased risk of infection and/or a severe course of COVID-19. In addition, the current pandemic requires unusual allocation of healthcare resources which may negatively impact the care of patients with chronic liver disease that continue to require medical attention. Thus, the challenge hepatologists are facing is to promote telemedicine in the outpatient setting, prioritise outpatient contacts, avoid nosocomial dissemination of the virus to patients and healthcare providers, and at the same time maintain standard care for patients who require immediate medical attention. 
 Title: Care of patients with liver disease during the COVID-19 pandemic: EASL-ESCMID position paper
False

Paragraph: Purpose: Receiving influenza vaccination may increase the risk of other respiratory viruses, a phenomenon known as virus interference. Test-negative study designs are often utilized to calculate influenza vaccine effectiveness. The virus interference phenomenon goes against the basic assumption of the test-negative vaccine effectiveness study that vaccination does not change the risk of infection with other respiratory illness, thus potentially biasing vaccine effectiveness results in the positive direction. This study aimed to investigate virus interference by comparing respiratory virus status among Department of Defense personnel based on their influenza vaccination status. Furthermore, individual respiratory viruses and their association with influenza vaccination were examined. Results: We compared vaccination status of 2880 people with non-influenza respiratory viruses to 3240 people with pan-negative results. Comparing vaccinated to non-vaccinated patients, the adjusted odds ratio for non-flu viruses was 0.97 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.86, 1.09; p = 0.60). Additionally, the vaccination status of 3349 cases of influenza were compared to three different control groups: all controls (N = 6120), non-influenza positive controls (N = 2880), and pan-negative controls (N = 3240). The adjusted ORs for the comparisons among the three control groups did not vary much (range: 0.46-0.51). Conclusions: Receipt of influenza vaccination was not associated with virus interference among our population. Examining virus interference by specific respiratory viruses showed mixed results. Vaccine derived virus interference was significantly associated with coronavirus and human metapneumovirus; however, significant protection with vaccination was associated not only with most influenza viruses, but also parainfluenza, RSV, and non-influenza virus coinfections. Published by Elsevier Ltd. 
 Title: Influenza vaccination and respiratory virus interference among Department of Defense personnel during the 2017-2018 influenza season
False

Paragraph: An epidemic of Ebola virus disease (EVD) from 2013-16 posed a serious risk of global spread during its early growth phase. A post-epidemic evaluation of the effectiveness of travel restrictions has yet to be conducted. The present study aimed to estimate the effectiveness of travel restrictions in reducing the risk of importation from mid-August to September, 2014, using a simple hazard-based statistical model. The hazard rate was modeled as an inverse function of the effective distance, an excellent predictor of disease spread, which was calculated from the airline transportation network. By analyzing datasets of the date of EVD case importation from the 15 th of July to the 15 th of September 2014, and assuming that the network structure changed from the 8 th of August 2014 because of travel restrictions, parameters that characterized the hazard rate were estimated. The absolute risk reduction and relative risk reductions due to travel restrictions were estimated to be less than 1% and about 20%, respectively, for all models tested. Effectiveness estimates among African countries were greater than those for other countries outside Africa. The travel restrictions were not effective enough to expect the prevention of global spread of Ebola virus disease. It is more efficient to control the spread of disease locally during an early phase of an epidemic than to attempt to control the epidemic at international borders. Capacity building for local containment and coordinated and expedited international cooperation are essential to reduce the risk of global transmission. 
 Title: Reduced Risk of Importing Ebola Virus Disease because of Travel Restrictions in 2014: A Retrospective Epidemiological Modeling Study

True