Fig. 12.

No intervention: The effect of geometry. Each model has average degree 8, and power-law exponent $\tau =3.3$. We see that there is only a match between the mean field network configuration model (CM) when α < 2, hence, there are many long-range connections in the network. The epidemic curve of configuration model with $\tau =3.3$(CM(3.3), orange) matches that of GIRG with $(\tau ,\alpha )=(3.3,1.3)$(GIRG(3.3,1.3), red). When α is increased to 2.3 (GIRG(3.3,2.3), green). This effects the first peak of epidemic curve to flatten, its magnitude is shrunk by almost 40%, even though the average degree is tuned to remain the same. Top:$\eta =0.002$(500 days immunity) On all three models, a single peak can be observed, and all runs die out within 70 days. Bottom: $\eta =0.009,$the first peak has the same height as on to the top picture and is not shown. Without intervention (GIRG(3.3,1.3)), the second and further peaks of the epidemic behave similarly to the mean-field network (CM(3.3)). With intervention, (GIRG(3.3,2.3)), both the oscillation period as well as its amplitude are higher, but the average stationary proportion of infected nodes is lower. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)