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.
--------
Question: Paragraph: Speaking at a White House coronavirus briefing, Trump said he would unveil a new advisory group next week that would focus on the process of economic opening. The president, who faced criticism for playing down the threat from the virus in its early stages, has chafed at the devastating economic impact of the strict social distancing measures his administration has recommended. The guidelines are set to stay in place through the end of April. The president will then have to decide whether to extend them or start encouraging people to go back to work and a more normal way of life. “I’m going to have to make a decision, and I ... hope to God that it’s the right decision,” Trump said. “It’s the biggest decision I’ve ever had to make.”  Trump said the facts would determine the next move, though he reiterated his desire to re-open the economy. Asked what metrics he would use to make his judgment, he pointed at his forehead: “The metrics right here, that’s my metrics.”  Trump suggested the number of new infections was flattening and the death toll would be lower than initial projections of more than 100,000. He said he would announce the members of the new advisory council possibly on Tuesday. Some state governors will be appointed. Trump said the aggressive social distancing and stay-at-home measures taken to combat the coronavirus were showing signs of success, and situations in hot spots such as New Orleans, Louisiana, and Detroit, Michigan, were stabilizing. U.S. deaths from the virus topped 18,100 on Friday, according to a Reuters tally. But administration officials cautioned it was still too early to ease restrictions, and said the faithful should not gather in churches on the Easter Sunday holiday. “We know it’s difficult in this time of year in particular to avoid gatherings of more than 10, but we’re grateful that so many churches, synagogues and places of worship have done just that,” Vice President Mike Pence said, urging worshipers “to continue to heed the guidelines.”  New U.S. government figures show coronavirus infections will spike during the summer if stay-at-home orders are lifted after 30 days as planned, according to projections first reported by the New York Times and confirmed by a Department of Homeland Security official. If shelter-in-place orders are lifted after 30 days, the death toll is estimated to reach 200,000, according to the projections, obtained from DHS and the Department of Health and Human Services. Trump said at the briefing that he and his advisers have not seen the new projections. Trump said he was getting fewer calls from governors urgently seeking equipment and help. “We’re in great shape with ventilators, we’re in great shape with protective clothing, we have additional planeloads coming in. But we’re not getting any calls from governors at this moment,” he said. Dr. Deborah Birx, the coordinator of the White House task force on the coronavirus, said the United States was starting to flatten the curve the way Italy did, with a lot of the success coming from progress in New York City. Officials have pointed to declining rates of coronavirus hospitalizations and need for intensive care in hard-hit New York as signs that social distancing measures are paying off. “But as encouraging as they are, we have not reached the peak. And so every day we need to continue to do what we did yesterday, and the week before and the week before that because that’s what in the end is going to take us across the peak and down the other side,” Birx said. Claim: Using his own 'metrics,' Trump says ending U.S. shutdown is biggest decision yet.

Answer: President Donald Trump said on Friday he faced his biggest decision yet with regard to when to re-open the U.S. economy from its coronavirus shutdown and pledged to listen to health experts when making that determination.


Question: Paragraph: There is no discussion of cost in this release. The journal article says several institutions refused to provide their prices. Nevertheless, the high cost of robotic surgery is an important issue. The researchers wrote they were unable to say whether those high costs might be offset [or not] by certain potential benefits (such as shorter hospital stays), but the release should have at least acknowledged the cost issues. The release does report the percentage of patients in the robot-assisted and open surgery groups that were still alive with no signs of disease progression two years after their procedures: 72.3 percent of patients in the robotic surgery group compared with 71.6 percent in the open surgery group… and it notes the difference was not statistically significant. It also reports that the robot-assisted surgery patients checked out of the hospital after six days on average, compared to 7 days for those in the open surgery group. The release reports only half as much blood loss in the robot surgery group, but does not report the amounts, which averaged 300 mL in the robot-assisted group vs. 700 mL in the open surgery group… that’s a difference of less than one pint. The release reports that patients who had robot-assisted surgery spent more time in the operating room than those having open procedures (seven hours vs. six hours). It also reports overall rates of adverse effects (67 percent in the robot group vs. 69 percent in the open group), along with listing the most common problems: urinary tract infections and intestinal obstructions. It would have helped if the release had pointed out that these complication rates were not statistically different. In a way, the release is satisfactory and yet maddeningly unsatisfactory. It tells readers that the study was a randomly controlled trial with 350 patients, but it buries the most important point: that the ability of these researchers to do this sort of rigorous trial comparing robot-assisted surgery with open techniques highlights how few such trials are done. Deep in the release, the researchers are quoted as saying the findings “underscore the need for further high-quality trials to assess surgical innovation before this surgical technique is widely adopted in clinical practice” and further that “It is important to conduct these trials before widespread adoption of technology, as has been the case with robotic prostatectomy (removal of the prostate).” The quality of the evidence should have been the lead. The release does not exaggerate the prevalence of bladder cancer. It does not push treatment on those who are unlikely to benefit. The release could be interpreted as promoting a newer more expensive form of therapy that doesn’t provide any advantages over the standard therapy. Although the release reports that the study was supported by the National Cancer Institute, it fails to note the financial disclosures several researchers made about money they have received from companies relevant to this study. The comparison of robot-assisted to open surgery was the main point of the release. The release makes clear that both techniques are available… including at the institution that issued the release. The release could have informed readers that, according to the published paper, that all of the operators in this study had done at least 10 robot-assisted cystectomies before being allowed to participate in the study. When widespread adoption of the robot-assisted procedure occurs, it would be possible that many surgeons would not have completed that many robotic cystectomies. While the release does tell readers that what is really new here is the use of randomization to compare robot-assisted surgery to open surgery for bladder cancer, it manages to bury that lead so deep under the poorly worded description of the results of this non-inferiority trial that the thrust of the release is unsatisfactory. The release doesn’t employ unjustified, sensational language. Claim: Robotic surgery as effective as open surgery for bladder cancer

Answer: This news release about a trial that randomly assigned people with bladder cancer to either robot-assisted or open surgery buried the real news under a weak lead that garbles the findings. The news here is that, contrary to assertions of many proponents of robot-assisted surgery, it is possible to randomize patients in order to get a valuable comparison instead of relying on weaker study designs that can’t answer the fundamental question about how old and new techniques compare. The release is rated as satisfactory on many criteria because key information was included in the body of the release, but the headline proclaiming that robot surgery is “as effective” as open surgery misses the larger point. The headline and lead also put a pro-robot spin on the results, which could also be summarized as robot surgery is “not clearly worse.” Also not explained: robot-assisted surgery is more expensive. The final sentence of the release, a quote from a researcher, should have been the lead: “It is important to conduct these trials before widespread adoption of technology, as has been the case with robotic prostatectomy (removal of the prostate).”  We are bombarded with releases and news stories trumpeting results from studies of robot-assisted surgery that don’t actually compare the new technology to existing practice. These studies often lack any control group or use historical data that may not be truly comparable. The promoters of expensive new devices then claim that they are relying on the best available evidence. This trial shows better evidence can (and should) be gathered. And in this case, good quality evidence indicates little difference in the techniques, despite what all the big hospital billboards about robot surgery proclaim.


Question: Paragraph: Previous studies have established a heightened risk for fractures among patients taking both medicines, since they may cause slower bone formation and faster bone loss. The new research sheds light on the scale of the problem by comparing the records of 1,020 diabetic patients with fractures diagnosed by British doctors between 1994 and 2005 against a control group of diabetics who did not have fractures. Christian Meier of University Hospital Basel found those on Avandia or Actos — known generically as rosiglitazone and pioglitazone — had double or triple the odds of non-spine fractures. The odds for fracture were increased among patients who took the drugs for approximately 12 to 18 months and the risk was highest for those with two or more years of therapy. Fractures of the hip and wrist were most notable, according to the findings published in the journal Archives of Internal Medicine. Avandia and Actos belong to a class of medicines called thiazolidinediones, which are designed to sensitise the body to insulin. But researchers believe they also stimulate the action of a cell that drives the process of reabsorbing bone, making bones more apt to break. Both are blockbuster products but Avandia has lost out to Actos following publication of a U.S. study last May linking it to heart attack risk. Claim: Swiss study suggests diabetes drugs double fracture risk.

Answer:
Diabetes drugs Avandia from GlaxoSmithKline Plc and Takeda Pharmaceutical Co Ltd’s Actos can more than double the risk of bone fractures, Swiss researchers said on Monday.