Self-isolation or borders closing: What prevents the spread of the epidemic better?

Pandemic propagation of COVID-19 motivated us to discuss the impact of the human network clustering on epidemic spreading. Today, there are two clustering mechanisms which prevent of uncontrolled disease propagation in a connected network: an "internal" clustering, which mimics self-isolation (SI) in local naturally arranged communities, and an "external" clustering, which looks like a sharp frontiers closing (FC) between cities and countries, and which does not care about the natural connections of network agents. SI networks are "evolutionarily grown" under the condition of maximization of small cliques in the entire network, while FC networks are instantly created. Running the standard SIR model on clustered SI and FC networks, we demonstrate that the evolutionary grown clustered network prevents the spread of an epidemic better than the instantly clustered network with similar parameters. We find that SI networks have the scale-free property for the degree distribution P(k)∼k^{η}, with a small critical exponent -2<η<-1. We argue that the scale-free behavior emerges as a result of the randomness in the initial degree distributions.

[1]  M. Serrano,et al.  Percolation and epidemic thresholds in clustered networks. , 2006, Physical review letters.

[2]  K. Goh,et al.  Spectra and eigenvectors of scale-free networks. , 2001, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[3]  Gabor Vattay,et al.  Predicting the ultimate outcome of the COVID-19 outbreak in Italy , 2020, 2003.07912.

[4]  K. Sneppen,et al.  Specificity and Stability in Topology of Protein Networks , 2002, Science.

[5]  S. Nechaev,et al.  Islands of stability in motif distributions of random networks. , 2013, Physical review letters.

[6]  Piet Van Mieghem,et al.  Epidemic processes in complex networks , 2014, ArXiv.

[7]  Santo Fortunato,et al.  Community detection in graphs , 2009, ArXiv.

[8]  S. Maslov,et al.  Phase transitions in social networks inspired by the Schelling model , 2018, Physical Review E.

[9]  A. Barabasi,et al.  Spectra of "real-world" graphs: beyond the semicircle law. , 2001, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[10]  Herbert W. Hethcote,et al.  The Mathematics of Infectious Diseases , 2000, SIAM Rev..

[11]  F. Pollmann,et al.  Ergodicity Breaking Arising from Hilbert Space Fragmentation in Dipole-Conserving Hamiltonians , 2019, Physical Review X.

[12]  Alessandro Vespignani,et al.  Epidemic spreading in scale-free networks. , 2000, Physical review letters.

[13]  R. Nandkishore,et al.  Localization from Hilbert space shattering: From theory to physical realizations , 2020 .

[14]  Matthieu Latapy,et al.  Efficient and simple generation of random simple connected graphs with prescribed degree sequence , 2005, J. Complex Networks.

[15]  S. Nechaev,et al.  Eigenvalue tunneling and decay of quenched random network. , 2016, Physical review. E.

[16]  Cristopher Moore,et al.  Asymptotic analysis of the stochastic block model for modular networks and its algorithmic applications , 2011, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[17]  M. Keeling,et al.  The effects of local spatial structure on epidemiological invasions , 1999, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[18]  Ginestra Bianconi,et al.  Scale-free networks with an exponent less than two. , 2006, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[19]  S N Dorogovtsev,et al.  Scale-free networks with exponent one. , 2016, Physical review. E.

[20]  M. Newman,et al.  Epidemics and percolation in small-world networks. , 1999, Physical review. E, Statistical physics, plasmas, fluids, and related interdisciplinary topics.

[21]  Thilo Gross,et al.  Epidemic dynamics on an adaptive network. , 2005, Physical review letters.

[22]  O. Valba,et al.  Localization and non-ergodicity in clustered random networks , 2020, J. Complex Networks.