Given a paragraph and a claim, classify it this way: If the claim contradicts the evidence present in the paragraph, classify the claim as '0'. If the claim has multiple supporting *AND* contradicting evidences, classify the claim as '1'. If the claim has supporting evidence and the paragraph is in overall favor of the claim, then classify the claim as '2'.

[Q]: Paragraph: "During a Senate appropriations Feb. 25 subcommittee hearing, Chad Wolf, the acting secretary of Homeland Security, said the U.S. flu mortality rate was about the same as the current estimated global mortality rate of the coronavirus outbreak. He made this statement during an exchange with Sen. John Neely Kennedy (R-La.) regarding what the acting secretary knew about the coronavirus, which causes a disease known as COVID-19. This C-SPAN video shows the full discussion between the two. Kennedy first asked what the worldwide mortality rate for coronavirus is, to which Wolf responded, that it was ""under 2%"" but that he would need to check with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to get the actual figure and that ""it changes daily."" The Louisiana senator then asked, ""What’s the mortality rate for influenza over, say, the last 10 years in America?"" Wolf answered: ""It’s also right around that percentage as well. I don’t have that offhand, but it’s right around 2% as well."" We asked the Department of Homeland Security where Wolf’s figure came from. A DHS spokesperson said in an email, ""As the acting secretary said in his hearing, he did not have that information on hand and refers to Health and Human Services -- the federal agency in charge of the federal government’s coronavirus response."" The comparison of coronavirus to flu in terms of mortality rates seemed like an important mechanism to understanding the growing concern about the reach of coronavirus, so we decided to dig deeper to find out if these statistics hold up. We also asked experts to explain what the numbers mean in terms of risk. Digging into mortality rate numbers The CDC directed us to its online influenza resources and referred us to the World Health Organization for more information on coronavirus. Christopher Mores, a global health professor at George Washington University, helped make sense of some of the figures. He calculated the average, 10-year mortality rate for flu using CDC data and found it was 0.1%. That 0.1% rate is frequently cited among experts, including Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Dr. Amesh Adalja, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins University Center for Health Security, called it ""sort of the canonical seasonal influenza mortality figure."" It’s important to note, that although this percentage seems like a small number, influenza is responsible for an estimated 30,000 to 40,000 deaths annually. Now, for coronavirus. According to statistics released Feb. 17 by the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, the mortality rate for coronavirus was 2.3%. That’s based on cases reported through Feb. 11 and calculated by dividing the numbers of coronavirus-related deaths at the time (1,023) by the number of the confirmed cases (44,672) of the coronavirus. (These numbers reflect the information available at the time of the secretary’s testimony.) But this report has limitations, Mores said, including the vague way Chinese officials are defining who has been infected by the coronavirus. ""We have not been able to understand what precisely has gone on there,"" said Mores. ""They have changed their case definitions multiple times. It’s murky what has gone into the case count and who has gone into being counted on cases."" The WHO said in a press conference Monday that in Wuhan, China, the city where the virus first hit, the mortality rate ranged from 2% to 4%. Officials said that in the rest of China, outside of Wuhan, the mortality rate of coronavirus is 0.7%. Mike Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, said the mortality rate in China has since risen to 0.9%. Right now he doesn’t see a similarity in the flu mortality rate and the coronavirus mortality rate. ""We don’t have any evidence to that being the case,"" said Osterholm. Mores said U.S. health officials just don’t have enough information to know whether the two mortality rates are similar. Understanding this comparison would offer a means to better understand the severity of the coronavirus. It could also help in educating the public about the novel illness. ""Until we can gain our own experience with this virus, it’s going to be pretty squishy. So, all the numbers that you have come across here are within the range of possibility,"" he said. ""Absolutely, the hope is we will end up with something similar to the flu, but we just don’t know yet."" Multiple experts told us that the number of coronavirus cases not just in China but worldwide has probably been undercounted because many people with the infection do not suffer serious symptoms and may not seek medical treatment. It is possible that only those who have tested positive are being counted as ""confirmed cases."" Until the case definition is expanded, they said, to include people clinicians think may have COVID-19 but who were not tested for it, then the total estimated number of cases will remain lower than the likely reality. But, if the number of cases widens to include those with mild symptoms who have not been tested, then the mortality rate will go down. This is the way mortality rates are calculated for the flu, said Mores. The numbers of flu illnesses and deaths are estimates based not only on positive flu tests, but also on doctors’ suspicions and symptomatic diagnosis. One key difference between the flu and the coronavirus illness, Osterholm cautioned, is that, with the flu, the population has a partially built up immunity, whether through receiving flu shots or already having been exposed to the illness. Mores concurred. ""You know, the risk is this: We have a brand-new virus in a completely naive population on Earth, we’re all susceptible to it. Everyone is potentially infectable with this virus,"" he said. ""Even with a high transmission rate and the low case fatality rate, that still becomes a massive number of ill and fatal cases."" Our ruling There are two ways to parse out this claim: First, is it true that the average U.S. mortality rate for flu is 2%? That’s not true, according to data from the CDC and exchanges with multiple global health experts. On average, the flu mortality rate during the past 10 years has been 0.1%. In addition, Wolf and a DHS spokesperson admitted that the acting secretary did not have the statistics in front of him when he answered questions at the hearing about the mortality rates. Second, is it true the COVID-19 mortality rate is similar to the flu mortality rate? Wolf is also wrong on that account, based on the limited information currently known about the coronavirus. Recent data from the Chinese government set the COVID-19 mortality rate at 2.3%. That’s vastly different from the flu’s mortality rate of 0.1%. Experts also said that while it’s possible the mortality rate from the new virus could come close to the flu’s mortality rate eventually ― if the case definition of coronavirus is expanded -- it’s too soon to make that assumption with the limited information available." Claim: The mortality rate for the flu is “right around” that of the new coronavirus: “It’s right around 2%.”
[A]: 0


[Q]: Paragraph: "A  post about COVID-19 is being shared in a new format on Facebook. In an audio message that a reader sent us on March 23, a woman with a British accent lists 10 ways that people can avoid being infected with the coronavirus. The message claims to be based on research from Chinese scientists. ""It was sent to me by a colleague who has a friend that works at Dr. Negrin, which is the main hospital on our island,"" says the woman on the audio message. ""It’s obviously in Spanish, so I’m just going to read it and translate it for you."" University Hospital of Gran Canaria Dr. Negrin is located in the city of Las Palmas on Gran Canaria, one of Spain’s Canary Islands. The island chain’s tourism industry has been hard-hit by the COVID-19 pandemic. Here’s some of the questionable medical advice in the audio message that caught our eye: If some of those claims sound familiar, it’s because many of them have been circulating on social media in some form since January, when the World Health Organization addressed a slew of COVID-19 rumors on Twitter. We’ve also debunked several bogus coronavirus prevention and treatment methods. But this audio message was new to us, so we decided to check out each of the five claims. All of them either lack evidence or have been debunked by public health officials. While health experts recommend drinking water regularly to stay healthy, there is no evidence that sipping some every 20 minutes can help prevent coronavirus infection. The primary way the virus spreads is through close contact with infected people and respiratory droplets, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. When someone with the coronavirus coughs or sneezes, their germs land on surfaces around them. The virus then infects people who touch those surfaces and then their eyes, nose or mouth. So to prevent contracting the coronavirus, the CDC advises people to avoid touching their face as much as possible. Other ways to prevent infection include washing your hands with soap and water, covering your coughs and sneezes with a tissue and regularly sanitizing the surfaces in your home or at your workstation. As of now, there is no specific treatment for the virus. In a tweet published Feb. 7, the WHO said it does not advise people to drink water as a way to avoid coronavirus infection. While air-drying your clothes may save you some money on your electricity bill, there is no evidence it will kill the coronavirus. We’ve rated similar claims . There is ample evidence that viruses, including human coronaviruses, don’t like heat. Influenza, for example, thrives in dry, cold weather, which is one reason the flu season typically spans from fall to spring. And high-intensity UV light can kill viruses. Here are 4 real ways to protect yourself But that doesn’t mean sun exposure kills the coronavirus. Experts told us natural sunlight doesn’t provide the UV intensity needed to kill the virus, and the WHO says on its website that COVID-19 can be transmitted in all climates, ""including areas with hot and humid weather."" Neither the WHO nor the CDC lists sunlight exposure as a method to kill the coronavirus. In fact, the WHO has debunked the claim, saying ""there is no evidence that sunlight kills the new coronavirus."" Public health officials say washing your hands is one of the primary ways to prevent COVID-19 infection. But if you’re healthy and in self-isolation, there is probably little reason to lather up so frequently. The CDC recommends washing your hands with soap and water for at least 20 seconds at a time — ""especially after you have been in a public place, or after blowing your nose, coughing, or sneezing."" On its website, UNICEF lists a few more examples of when people should wash their hands: ""after touching surfaces outside the home, including money; before, during and after caring for a sick person; and before and after eating."" So if you’re doing any of those things every 20 minutes, you may want to wash your hands. This claim is baseless. As we’ve covered before, there is evidence that human coronaviruses don’t like heat. But just as there’s no scientific proof that hot things prevent COVID-19, there’s no proof that cold things make you more susceptible. This claim is similar to one made in a fake UNICEF handout that circulated on Facebook in early March. It said people should ""stay away from ice cream and eating cold"" to avoid contracting COVID-19. In a statement, UNICEF debunked that claim. On its website, the WHO did, too. ""There is no scientific evidence that eating hygienically made frozen food and ice-cream spreads the new coronavirus,"" the organization says. There’s no evidence to support this. An article published in the New England Journal of Medicine on March 17 tested how long the coronavirus, formally called SARS-CoV-2, lived on five different surfaces: aerosols, plastic, stainless steel, copper and cardboard. ""SARS-CoV-2 remained viable in aerosols throughout the duration of our experiment (3 hours),"" the authors wrote. ""SARS-CoV-2 was more stable on plastic and stainless steel than on copper and cardboard."" On cardboard, they could not detect any after 24 hours. The coronavirus lives the longest on plastic and stainless steel — up to three days. That’s far from nine days, as the audio message claimed. And while the journal article hasn’t been peer-reviewed, its findings are similar to those of other researchers. An article published in the Journal of Hospital Infection in March reviewed what other scientists have found about the surface viability of various coronaviruses that infect humans, such as Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) and Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS), which are both similar to COVID-19. The authors wrote that scientists found some of these viruses could live for up to five days on steel, and eight hours on aluminum. Another study they cited found a SARS virus strain remaining viable for up to five days on an unspecified metal. The article did find that one strain of SARS could live for up to nine days on plastic surfaces. But two other strains of the virus remained viable for only five days or less, and MERS could live for only up to 48 hours at a certain temperature. More recently, a March 23 report from the CDC said novel coronavirus RNA was found on surfaces on the Diamond Princess cruise ship 17 days after passengers disembarked. That finding raised questions about whether the coronavirus can last longer on some surfaces than previously thought, but researchers have noted that viral RNA doesn’t necessarily mean live virus was present. A chain audio message on Facebook Messenger lists 10 ways to prevent infection from COVID-19. We fact-checked five and found them inaccurate. First, there is no evidence that sipping water every 20 minutes can help prevent coronavirus infection. There is also no evidence that exposing your clothing to the sun will kill the coronavirus. Health officials recommend that people avoid touching their face and wash their hands for at least 20 seconds at a time —  not every 20 minutes, as the message claims. There’s also no evidence that consuming cold things makes you more susceptible to the virus. Finally, while the science is far from settled, there’s no proof that the coronavirus can live for up to nine days on metallic surfaces. The best available evidence suggests that it can remain viable on stainless steel for up to three days. If you receive a chain message that you want us to fact-check, send a screenshot to [email protected] or forward it to us on Facebook." Claim: An audio message lists five ways people can prevent the novel coronavirus.
[A]: 0


[Q]: Paragraph: "It’s clear that Scott Walker’s views on abortion will get intensified scrutiny now that he has joined the crowded Republican presidential field. In 2014, during the final weeks of the campaign before he won re-election as governor, Walker was attacked in a TV ad by a national political action committee that works to elect Democratic women who support abortion rights. And weeks before his White House run announcement on July 13, 2015, Walker was targeted twice: once in a TV ad by the nation’s oldest abortion rights advocacy group and once on a TV talk show by U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin. Baldwin, a Wisconsin Democrat, used her June 3, 2015 interview on MSNBC to cast Walker as out of step with other Republicans on abortion. After host Chris Hayes suggested that Walker’s support for a law banning abortion after 20 weeks was mainstream among Republicans, Baldwin agreed. But she drew a contrast, stating: ""Yes, but if you look at the history of those who have been elected president, Scott Walker's views are clearly more extreme than any Republican president in recent times -- much more extreme than President George W. Bush with regard to the issues of having exemptions that deal with the health and the life of the mother, and the issues of exemptions for rape victims and incest."" On abortion, is Walker to the right of any recent Republican president? Previous claims Some statements about Walker and abortion have missed the mark, including the two we mentioned. The TV ad by EMILY’s List shortly before Walker defeated Democrat Mary Burke in 2014 claimed Walker was ""forcing some women to undergo a transvaginal probe to get an abortion."". A law Walker signed says women can choose either a transvaginal or transabdominal ultrasound, though in certain cases a transvaginal probe may be medically necessary. The TV ad by NARAL Pro-Choice America, which aired in June 2015 in Iowa and New Hampshire, claimed Walker had said that ""forcing women facing abortion to get invasive ultrasounds was 'just a cool thing.’ "" The ""cool"" reference wasn’t to forcing some women to get vaginal ultrasounds, but rather to the ultrasound technology that produces images from the womb. Nevertheless, there is no question that for decades -- going back to before his time as governor and as a state lawmaker -- Walker has been staunchly anti-abortion. Baldwin’s office didn’t respond to our requests for information to back her claim, and Walker’s campaign didn’t weigh in, either. But we can compare Walker’s public positions on abortion to those of recent GOP presidents. NARAL, Planned Parenthood We asked NARAL Pro-Choice America, formerly known as the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League, and the Planned Parenthood Federation of America about how they rate politicians on abortion rights. The groups told us they don’t produce ratings on a continuum. They put politicians into broad categories -- not on a scale that would rank one as more extreme, to use Baldwin’s term, than another. NARAL gave Walker and 13 other Republican presidential contenders a grade of F, for Fail. The group points to Walker’s votes in the Legislature and measures he has signed into law as governor restricting access to abortion services. Planned Parenthood rates the Republican and Democratic 2016 contenders more broadly, on access to abortion, affordable birth control and family planning. Like most of the other GOP hopefuls, Walker was given a red X on each measure, rather than a green checkmark. Planned Parenthood notes that besides wanting to ban abortion even in cases of rape and incest, Walker tried to repeal a law requiring insurance companies to cover prescription birth control and defunded Planned Parenthood, which is something Walker himself highlights in his campaign speeches. The website of the National Right to Life Committee, meanwhile, highlights the records of President Barack Obama and his four most recent predecessors, dating back to the late Ronald Reagan, but doesn’t do any ratings. So let’s look more closely at Walker and the three most recent GOP presidents, dating back to Reagan. Walker vs. Bushes, Reagan Walker’s basic position is clear. In 2010, a week before he was elected to his first term as governor, we rated a claim that Walker wants to make abortion illegal even in cases of rape, incest or to protect the life of the mother. He acknowledged that was his position. As Matt Sande of Pro-Life Wisconsin told us, since then, Walker has not contradicted that position in words or actions. In fact, Walker has underscored his support for banning abortion without exceptions commonly accepted by other abortion opponents. In March 2015, Walker released an ""open letter on life,"" which began by noting that he had ""earned a 100 percent rating with pro-life groups in Wisconsin."" And in June 2015, Walker pledged to sign legislation to ban abortions in Wisconsin after 20 weeks -- with no exceptions for cases of rape or incest. That measure was passed by the Legislature the next month and is awaiting Walker’s signature. No recent Republican president has gone so far in opposing exceptions. As president, George H.W. Bush (1989-’93) and George W. Bush (2001-’09) both supported allowing abortions in cases of rape or incest, or to protect the life of the mother. The elder Bush said in 1992 he said: ""My own position on abortion is well-known and remains unchanged. I oppose abortion in all cases except rape or incest or where the life of the mother is at stake."" The younger Bush declared in 2006: ''My position has always been three exceptions: rape, incest and the life of the mother."" Meanwhile, Reagan (1981-’89), an idol of Walker’s, was closer to Walker’s position. He didn’t support an exception for rape or incest, but did support one to protect the life of the mother. In 1987, he promoted a bill with a provision that ""no funds appropriated by Congress shall be used to perform abortions, except where the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term."" Our rating Baldwin said Walker's views on abortion are more restrictive ""than any Republican president in recent times."" Walker supports outlawing abortion in all circumstances. The three most recent GOP presidents each supported exceptions, such as allowing abortion to protect the life of the mother." Claim: "Tammy Baldwin Says Scott Walker's views on abortion are more restrictive ""than any Republican president in recent times."
[A]:
2