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 genome of coronaviruses contains structural and non-structural genes, including several so-called accessory genes. All group 1b coronaviruses encode a single accessory protein between the spike and envelope genes, except for human coronavirus (HCoV) 229E. The prototype virus has a split gene, encoding the putative ORF4a and ORF4b proteins. To determine whether primary HCoV-229E isolates exhibit this unusual genome organization, we analyzed the ORF4a/b region of five current clinical isolates from The Netherlands and three early isolates collected at the Common Cold Unit (CCU) in Salisbury, UK. Results: All Dutch isolates were identical in the ORF4a/b region at amino acid level. All CCU isolates are only 98% identical to the Dutch isolates at the nucleotide level, but more closely related to the prototype HCoV-229E (>98%). Remarkably, our analyses revealed that the laboratory adapted, prototype HCoV-229E has a 2-nucleotide deletion in the ORF4a/b region, whereas all clinical isolates carry a single ORF, 660 nt in size, encoding a single protein of 219 amino acids, which is a homologue of the ORF3 proteins encoded by HCoV-NL63 and PEDV. Conclusion: Thus, the genome organization of the group 1b coronaviruses HCoV-NL63, PEDV and HCoV-229E is identical. It is possible that extensive culturing of the HCoV-229E laboratory strain resulted in truncation of ORF4. This may indicate that the protein is not essential in cell culture, but the highly conserved amino acid sequence of the ORF4 protein among clinical isolates suggests that the protein plays an important role in vivo. 
 Title: Virology Journal Human coronavirus 229E encodes a single ORF4 protein between the spike and the envelope genes

A: False
****
Q: Paragraph: Porcine group A rotavirus (GARV) is considered to be an important animal pathogen due to their economic impact in the swine industry and its potential to cause heterologous infections in humans. This study examined 475 fecal samples from 143 farms located in 6 provinces across South Korea. RT-PCR and nested PCR utilizing primer pairs specific for the GARV VP6 gene detected GARV-positive reactions in 182 (38.3%) diarrheic fecal samples. A total of 98 porcine GARV strains isolated from the GARV-positive feces were analyzed for G and P genotyping. Based on the sequence and phylogenetic analyses, the most predominant combination of G and P genotypes was G5P[7], found in 63 GARV strains (64.3%). The other combinations of G and P genotypes were G8P[7] (16 strains [16.3%]), G9P[7] (7 strains [7.1%]), G9P[23] (2 strains [2.0%]), and G8P[1] (1 strain [1.0%]). The counterparts of G or P genotypes were not determined in three G5, five P[7], and one P[1] strains. Interestingly, phylogenetic analysis indicated that all Korean G9 strains were more closely related to lineage VI porcine and human viruses than to other lineages (I-V) of GARVs and to Korean human G9 strains (lineage III). These results show that porcine GARV infections are common in diarrheic piglets in South Korea. The infecting strains are genetically diverse, and include homologous (G5P[7]), heterologous (G8P[1]), and reassortant (G8P[7]), as well as emerging G9 GARV strains. ß 
 Title: Detection and genotyping of Korean porcine rotaviruses

A:
True
****