Generate an explanation for the given claim using the provided supporting material from the paragraph. Please consider the following points while generating an output. 1) The claim will always have supporting proof in the paragraph, and the paragraph will have a clear point of view supporting the claim. 2) There can be instances where direct correlation to the claim is not available. Make use of the sentences in the paragraph to provide a corresponding output supporting the claim. 3) The explanation should be at least one and at most twelve sentences long.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: The Wuhan Municipal Health Commission said seven other people were in critical condition among a total of 41 who were suffering from pneumonia caused by a “preliminarily determined new type of coronavirus” as of Friday. That was down from the earlier figure of 59. The others were in stable condition and at least two had been released from a hospital. The patient who died was identified as a 61-year-old man who had been hospitalized after suffering shortness of breath and severe pneumonia. The commission said the man, who died Thursday, also suffered from abdominal tumors and chronic liver disease and had been a frequent customer at a food market on Wuhan’s outskirts linked to the majority of cases. China says the cause of the Wuhan outbreak remains unknown, but has sought to quash speculation that it could be a reappearance of the SARS epidemic, which killed hundreds in 2002 and 2003. Coronaviruses are a large family of viruses, some of which cause the common cold. Others found in bats, camels and other animals have evolved into more severe illnesses. Common symptoms include a runny nose, headache, cough and fever. Shortness of breath, chills and body aches are associated with more dangerous kinds of coronaviruses, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. China’s transport ministry says it plans additional measures to disinfect trains, planes and buses and prevent transmission of diseases during the 40-day travel rush centered on the Lunar New Year, also known as the Spring Festival, which falls this year on Jan. 25. The period began Friday and runs through Feb. 18. “The emergence of the epidemic may cause panic among people, especially in areas where people are concentrated during the Spring Festival travel period,” the ministry’s chief engineer, Wang Yang, told reporters at a news conference Thursday. “In order to further ensure the health of passengers, our ministry attaches great importance to the arrangements and deployment, and will focus on the disinfection monitoring and protection measures in areas with a large number of passenger travel volume, including transportation hubs, passenger stations and cargo hub plant stations,” Wang said. Possible cases of the same illness have been reported in Hong Kong, South Korea and Taiwan involving recent travelers to Wuhan. Health authorities elsewhere in China have yet to announce similar cases, despite the high population density around Wuhan and its role as a travel hub for central China. University of Hong Kong disease expert Yuen Kwok-yung was quoted by the city’s official news agency as saying that the genetic makeup of the novel coronavirus was 80% similar to SARS as it had been found in bats, civet cats and humans. Yuen said that it was unclear whether the virus could further change to become more lethal, as the SARS virus had, but that Hong Kong had a robust system for detecting more severe problems among patients. “So we have to take every measure and closely monitor the situation,” Yuen said, according to Radio Television Hong Kong. Claim: China reports 1st death from new type of coronavirus .
[EX A]: Health authorities in a central Chinese city on Saturday reported the country’s first death from a new type of coronavirus, as the government braced for the Lunar New Year travel boom amid concerns over a possible outbreak similar to that of the SARS virus in the early 2000s.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: Poor training, a lack of coordination and an overstretched military are also factors, but a new 76-point plan lays out ways to improve this, Colonel John Bradley, chief of psychiatry at Walter Reed Army Hospital in Washington, told a conference. Bradley said a team of experts spent a year interviewing troops who had attempted suicide, family members and others for the report and plan, presented last month to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who is due to report to Congress in 90 days. “They tell us again and again that we are failing,” Bradley told a symposium on military medicine sponsored by the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences and the Henry M. Jackson Foundation. Each branch of the services — the Army, Air Force, Navy and Marines — rushed to create a suicide prevention program, but there was no coordination. The report recommends that the defense secretary’s office take over coordination of suicide prevention efforts. On-the-ground prevention training often failed because those running the sessions did not understand their importance, Bradley said. “They are mocked and they are probably harmful,” he said. According to the report, available here 1,100 servicemen and women committed suicide in 2005 to 2009 -- one suicide every day and a half. The Army's suicide rate doubled in that time. About 1.9 million U.S. service men and women have been deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan. “We have done all the right things but despite all the things we have done, suicide rates have risen, particularly in the Marines and Army,” said Colonel Charles Hoge of Walter Reed. “A large percentage of our servicemen, our veterans, do not come in to get help,” he added. “It is not just the perception that they will be treated differently or somehow that it will affect their career, but it is also distrust in the system and distrust that mental health professionals can help them,” Hoge added. “They don’t trust us. They believe we speak with forked tongues,” Bradley said. Most of the suicides are among young, white males, the experts said. “Marines are young, they are confident, they are aggressive,” said Lieutenant General Richard Zimmer of the U.S. Marine Corps. “They are the last ones to raise their hand and say they have a problem.”   And troops who seek mental health services can lose their security clearances, their weapons and can be taken away from duties vital to their careers, Hoge and Bradley said. When they return home from war, the skills that kept them alive under fire make them dysfunctional in civilian society, Hoge said. “There are messages that the warrior gets when they back here that they are crazy,” he said. In addition, all the services are overstretched, the report said. “The force is out of balance,” Bradley said. “The force is fatigued. Anyone who doesn’t believe that has their eyes closed.”   Hoge said physical demands can also affect the mind. Troops often operate on just 3 or 4 hours a sleep a night for extended periods. “They often have pain, chronic pain,” he said. “They have gone through all these events, including concussions. It is clear there are physical changes that happen.”   Bradley said the report calls for skills-based training for commanders, troops and their families. Claim: Military suicide prevention efforts fail: report.
[EX A]: Efforts to prevent suicides among U.S. war veterans are failing, in part because distressed troops do not trust the military to help them, top military officials said on Thursday.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: This story does not mention cost. Sure, vitamin pills cost only pennies a day, but treating everyone would cost billions of dollars a year. Assuming just a nickel a day for 400 IU of vitamin D (the dose used in this study), the cost of treating everyone in the U.S. would exceed $5 billion a year. That bill has to be compared to the expected benefits of supplements given to healthy people, which in this trial were not statistically significant, so those billions might just be flushed down the drain. As noted above, the body of the story makes clear that the results of this trial did not show a clear benefit from taking 400 IU daily. However, the headline and lead sentence both state that vitamin D might fight colds, something this trial failed to clearly demonstrate. We’ll give the story the benefit of the doubt for what’s in the middle, not at the top. The story cautions that vitamin D can cause problems including nausea, vomiting, constipation, poor appetite, weight loss and even higher blood pressure or heart rhythm abnormalities. This rating is a close call. The story notes the limitations of the study of vitamin D and winter colds, including the fact that there was no statistically significant difference in the main outcome measure between the treatment and placebo groups, that the study was small, and that the extent of any benefit was not clear. The story also does a nice job of providing readers with some background, including results of other recent trials, as well as recommendations and opinions of health agencies and experts. However, the cautionary notes in the body of the story are drowned out by the headline and the lead sentence that tout potential cold-fighting properties of vitamin D. Also, while the story says that 164 men took part in the trial, it fails to tell readers that 60 of them dropped out before the study was done and that the high number of drop-outs made it impossible for the researchers to determine if there was a statistically significant difference in absenteeism between the treatment and placebo groups. We’ve made our point about the headline and lead, so we won’t ding the story for that again in this criterion. But the grade could have gone either way for reasons noted. This story does not exaggerate the effects of common winter colds. Although this story refers to the findings of other studies and the recommendations of health agencies and experts, there is no identified independent source to comment on the trial. In their journal article, the researchers reported no potential conflicts of interest. It would have been helpful to tell readers that the trial was funded by the Medical Research Fund of Finnish Defence Forces, in order to distinguish this trial from studies funded by supplement manufacturers or others with a vested interest in the results. The story points out that experts generally recommend supplements only when people aren’t getting enough vitamin D from their diet or sunlight. And as noted above, the story points out that supplements expose people to some risks of vitamin D toxicity. The availability of vitamin D supplementation is really not in question. There was no claim that there is anything new about tests of vitamin D for prevention of respiratory illness. This story missed the opportunity to explain what was different about this trial. In their article in the Journal of Infectious Diseases, the researchers pointed out that by studying military conscripts much of the variability that complicates population studies was filtered out. All the participants were from a narrow age group, had passed the same entry physical examination, lived in the same military housing, ate the same food, followed the same daily routines and so on. Also, the classification of their daily status (healthy or ill) was more uniform than would be expected in a study of people in varied civilian occupations. The strengths of the study would be expected to filter out much of the background noise that fogs typical population studies. It is notable that despite those features, this trial failed to reach statistically significant results (partly because of the high drop out rate, which the story should have mentioned.) One word usage nit: the story refers to military “recruits,” but the study participants were not recruited to join the military, they were performing mandatory service. The story quotes an e-mail exchange with the lead researcher, so it’s clear it didn’t rely solely on a news release. Claim: Some evidence vitamin D might fight colds
[EX A]:
The story points out that the results of the study provided only weak support for the idea that vitamin D has a protective effect and that in fact for the main outcome of this trial there was no statistically significant difference between the participants given vitamin D and those who took placebo pills. It almost feels as if the writer or editor wondered why they were doing the story at all and then decided to gussy up the headline and lead in order to justify running the piece. After all, a headline saying “Study unable to tell whether or not vitamin D helps fight colds” isn’t likely to attract as many readers. One alternative approach to the story might have been to focus on what this trial adds to the body of evidence suggesting that the winter dips in vitamin D levels (because people don’t get as much sunlight) may help explain why colds and flu are more common in the winter. That story frame could have attracted interest without hyping the trial results. In sum, this is a careful story undone a bit by a careless head. When trial results are not statistically significant, headlines shouldn’t tease readers. And – as always – we wish there had been an independent expert voice offering perspective on this study.