Table 2.

The optimal ring-cull radius in kilometers which minimizes the epidemic impact for both the true clustered location data (R_T) and the reparameterized random-location data (R_RR); also shown is the increase in epidemic impact if the optimal ring-cull radius for the reparameterized random data were implemented on the true location data, as opposed to the optimal ring-cull radius for the true data

Region	RT	RRR	Epidemic impact difference
Cumbria, UK	3.6 (3.5–3.8)	3.8 (3.6–4.0)	3 (0–11)
Devon, UK	2.8 (2.7–3.0)	2.8 (2.7–3.1)	0 (0–3)
Clwyd, UK	3.6 (3.5–3.7)	3.2 (3.1–3.4)	3 (1–7)
Aberdeenshire, UK	2.4 (2.3–2.7)	2.0 (1.9–2.2)	2 (1–3)
Lancaster, PA	3.6 (3.5–3.7)	3.8 (3.7–4.0)	2 (0–6)
Cuming, NE	0 (0–0)	0 (0–0)	0 (0–0)
Wright/Humboldt, IA	0 (0–0)	0 (0–0)	0 (0–0)
Franklin, TX	5.5 (5.4–5.6)	6.0 (5.8–6.1)	1 (0–3)

Values in brackets give the 95% confidence intervals for optimal ring-cull radii and epidemic impact difference; all results are for 10,000 stochastic simulations.