English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Several recent studies have tackled the issue of optimal network immunizationby providing efficient criteria to identify key nodes to be removed in order tobreak apart a network, thus preventing the occurrence of extensive epidemicoutbreaks. Yet, although the efficiency of those criteria has been demonstratedalso in empirical networks, preventive immunization is rarely applied toreal-world scenarios, where the usual approach is the a posteriori attempt tocontain epidemic outbreaks using quarantine measures. Here we compare theefficiency of prevention with that of quarantine in terms of the tradeoffbetween the number of removed and saved nodes on both synthetic and empiricaltopologies. We show how, consistent with common sense, but contrary to commonpractice, in many cases preventing is better than curing: depending on networkstructure, rescuing an infected network by quarantine could become inefficientsoon after the first infection.

Rapid decay in the relative efficiency of quarantine to halt epidemics in networks