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'.

Example Input: Paragraph: "As the spread of coronavirus has fed fears of illness, it has also spurred fears of mass quarantines. And looking at other countries that have been hit hard by the virus, including China and Italy, it’s not an idle question. On March 12, a reader sent us a comment from a website called Stop Mandatory Vaccination, run by a group that opposes bills to curb exemptions for vaccinations. (Here’s some background on the anti-vaccine movement.) The website said in part, ""The CDC can detain anyone with a fever — indefinitely. … Vaccination (is) a way people could get out of detention."" Similar comments on social media soon prompted high-level debunkings. Late on March 15, the National Security Council took to Twitter to knock down rumors about a national quarantine: ""Text message rumors of a national #quarantine are FAKE. There is no national lockdown. @CDCgov has and will continue to post the latest guidance on #COVID19. #coronavirus."" Text message rumors of a national #quarantine are FAKE. There is no national lockdown. @CDCgov has and will continue to post the latest guidance on #COVID19. #coronavirus Quarantines are real, but there’s a lot of misinformation floating around about the details. Here, we’ll attempt to clarify what’s accurate, and what’s not, about quarantines. (An inquiry to Stop Mandatory Vaccination was not returned.) There are two related terms that address this phenomenon: quarantine and isolation. ""Isolation"" separates people with a confirmed case of a communicable disease from people who are not sick. ""Quarantine"" separates and restricts the movement of people who were exposed to a contagious disease to see if they become sick. The last federal quarantine prior to the coronavirus outbreak came in the early 1960s, when officials were concerned about a smallpox outbreak. It’s been a century — back to the 1918-19 ""Spanish flu"" pandemic — since large-scale isolations and quarantines were last enforced. Federal quarantine power stems from Section 361 of the Public Health Service Act, which authorizes the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to take measures to prevent the entry and spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries and between states. Federal regulations revised in 2017 allow the CDC ""to detain, medically examine, and release persons arriving into the United States and traveling between states who are suspected of carrying"" certain communicable diseases. (Here’s what a sample quarantine order looks like.) Those powers are carried out with help from other federal agencies, such as Customs and Border Protection and the Coast Guard. This federal government has exercised this power recently with travelers returning from locations where coronavirus has been spreading, based on presidential proclamations like this one. So far we’ve been referring to federal quarantines. But most quarantine power actually resides with state and local governments, as well as tribal law on tribal lands. That’s because federal quarantine powers are limited to persons entering the United States from elsewhere. By contrast, states and localities enforce those powers within their own borders ""CDC officials are ‘preparing as if (the new coronavirus) is the next pandemic,’ but in reality, the laboring oar falls to state and local health departments,"" Polly J. Price, a professor of law and global health at Emory University, has written in the Atlantic. So the assertion we’re checking in this article, by focusing on CDC, misses a lot of where the action is: state and local governments. Historically, forcible quarantines have been rare, and they require a court order. Most of the time, experts said, people who are infected are released on their own recognizance with a promise to self-quarantine. There’s judicial precedent for quarantine powers dating back to the early 1800s, but subsequent case law has required a degree of due process, especially given that a quarantine, unlike an arrest, involves the detention of someone who is not suspected of a crime. Past cases ""suggest that there are important limits on the ability of the U.S. and state and local governments when it comes to some types of public health action,"" said David Schultz, a professor of political science and legal studies at Hamline University. The government has to show real harm, as well as that people get due process and a chance to appeal. Becoming subject to forcible quarantines isn’t just a question of having a particular germ; it also requires a strong likelihood that you will spread it to other people. ""Since most people can take precautions, this typically only happens in the case of person who can’t stay away from other people,"" such as people who have a severe mental illness, said Wendy K. Mariner, a professor of health law at the Boston University School of Public Health. What if you refuse a mandatory order? Practical consequences for such an action are tricky. While fines and incarceration are allowed, no public health expert today recommends jailing a person unwilling to quarantine, because they would be introducing a contagion into a confined population. ""The likelier answer is hospitals with secure wards,"" Mariner said. Not any fever gets you quarantined, contrary to the assertion we’re checking. The government ""would have to have good evidence that the individual was exposed to COVID-19"" to impose a quarantine, said Lawrence O. Gostin, faculty director of Georgetown University's O'Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law. ""‘Fever’ is too broad a definition,"" Mariner agreed. In addition to coronavirus, the CDC is able to quarantine only for the following diseases: cholera, diphtheria, infectious tuberculosis, plague, smallpox, yellow fever, viral hemorrhagic fever, SARS and pandemic flu. It’s an exaggeration to say quarantine is ""indefinite"" detention by the government, especially given what we know so far about the course of coronavirus disease. First, as we noted, quarantine is usually self-regulated. And for those instances when it’s not, such as when an individual is uncooperative, the person is able to leave quarantine when they are no longer contagious. Vaccination doesn’t get you out of quarantine. Typically, vaccinations aren’t cures; they’re preventive measures. In any case, it’s moot for coronavirus, because there is no vaccine yet. Claims on the internet said ""the CDC can detain anyone with a fever — indefinitely. … Vaccination (is) a way people could get out of detention."" The CDC does have the power to isolate people with certain infectious diseases and quarantine those who had contact with an infected person. But this claim is wrong or misleading about many of the details. Most quarantine decisions will be up to states and localities, rather than the CDC. People can’t be quarantined for just having a fever; they have to be shown to have been exposed to a specific set of diseases. Most quarantines are done voluntarily, not by force of the state. And vaccination is not a ticket out of quarantine." Claim: “The CDC can detain anyone with a fever — indefinitely. … Vaccination (is) a way people could get out of detention.”
Example Output: 0

Example Input: Paragraph: The news release quotes lead researcher Robert Meier, MD, saying previous studies have shown SBRT to be “a cost-effective and faster alternative to IMRT” but does not provide any detail as to the specific costs of either procedure. In fact, the difference is substantial. A 2014 study in the Journal of Clinical Oncology examined Medicare claims data showed a mean treatment cost of $13,645 for SBRT versus $21,023 for IMRT. And a 2012 study in the Journal of Oncology Practice concluded that SRBT has “great potential cost savings” for the health care system, with an average cost of $22,152 versus $35,431 for IMRT. One could also consider the cost of side effects as well as need for future treatments. The news release gives a lot of data. It states that 97 percent of patients were free from prostate cancer progression after five years, exceeding a historical control of 93 percent. It also says that fewer than 2 percent of patients experienced severe toxicities in their gastrointestinal, reproductive, and urinary systems, and no patients reported life-threatening or fatal toxicity. However, the news release does not attempt to say how these rates compare with other treatment options, which would help readers put the data in perspective. There are important caveats left out in the description of findings that are discussed under the evidence criterion. The news release states that between half and two-thirds of patients experienced low, “usually temporary” rates of toxicities. It also notes that “fewer than 2 percent of patients experienced severe toxicities in their gastrointestinal, reproductive, and urinary systems, and no patients reported life-threatening or fatal toxicity.” A few more details here would be helpful. For example, how many patients experienced a decline in urinary or sexual function, and for what period of time? And what are other potential risks of radiation therapy? The real question is how do these harms compare to other treatments? That was not assessed in this study. The news release gives some details to help readers understand how the study was conducted. However, it neglects to include several key points. First, the patients enrolled are from a very low risk population in terms of measuring benefit. The statement that these results compare favorably to historical controls at 5 years misses the point that the risk of death for this patient population isn’t seen until 10-15 years at the earliest. Second, without a contemporaneous comparison group, it should be stated that these results are subject to misinterpretation — both in terms of benefits, which are likely to be equally good with almost any other treatment (and some would argue active surveillance without treatment), and harms. Finally, it isn’t clear who this population represents. If these are younger men in their 50s and 60s, side effects are important but the long-term efficacy (beyond 5 years) is critical. If the men are over 70, one can argue whether they needed to treat the low risk group at all. In summary, this is a case series with no contemporaneous comparison group among a population with low risk prostate cancer where 5 year follow-up is inadequate to say that the treatment was successful in preventing progressive disease. The release could have included some cautions that the lead researcher discussed in a published paper in 2015. For example, he states that more radiation effects on adjacent organs might be observed after longer follow-up, and “firm conclusions about the efficacy and toxicity of SBRT relative to more conventional approaches await scrutiny by prospective randomized trials.” The news release does not commit mongering. However, as noted above, the patients enrolled in the trial were a very low risk population and one could argue that some of these patients may not have needed treatment at all. The news release does not say how the study was funded or whether any of the investigators have conflicts of interest. In papers on the topic published in 2015, the researchers declared no conflicts of interest. Some of the men in the study had a low-risk form of prostate cancer, which might have made them eligible for active surveillance rather than surgery. That option is not discussed in the news release. As mentioned in the quantifying benefits section, the news release does mention that this type of radiotherapy was compared with standard radiotherapy, although it was not directly studied. The news release states that patients in the trial were treated at 21 academic, regional, and community medical centers, which suggests that SRBT is widely available. The release claims novelty with this statement: “Our study is the first to contribute multi-center data that support the use of SBRT as front-line therapy for men with prostate cancer.” But it also states that SRBT for prostate cancer has been studied at other institutions, and that the procedure has become a standard of care for some lung cancer cases. It does not claim that this is a novel procedure. The news release does not contain any unjustifiable or sensational language. But as noted above, the favorable results in terms of benefit are not surprising and attributing them to the treatment could be viewed as unjustified. Claim: SBRT Offers Prostate Cancer Patients High Cancer Control and Low Toxicity in Fewer Treatments
Example Output: 1

Example Input: Paragraph: "Hostilities between the dairy industry and its competitors are flaring anew as alternatives to cow’s milk take up more space in the dairy case. That means the politicians can’t be far behind. U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin, a Wisconsin Democrat, spoke up Jan. 12, 2017 in a news release lauding herself as somebody who ""stands up for Wisconsin dairy farmers."" Baldwin wants Congress to pass the Dairy PRIDE Act -- officially known (at least to a few) as the ""Defending Against Imitations and Replacements of Yogurt, milk, and cheese to Promote Regular Intake of Dairy Everyday Act."" After two years of falling milk prices, she and other federal lawmakers want the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to enforce consumer regulations defining ""milk."" Is Baldwin right that imitation dairy products -- for instance, soy milk -- often differ nutritionally from dairy item? And is labeling them ""milk"" or ""cheese"" or ""yogurt"" against the law? To back that up, Baldwin’s office pointed us to nutritional labels, and to FDA regulations that plainly state: ""Milk is the lacteal secretion, practically free from colostrum, obtained by the complete milking of one or more healthy cows."" 'Against the law' To dairy officials, inclusion of the word ""milk"" on non-dairy products is a misappropriation of the popularity of cow’s milk. But competitors say coconut milk and soy milk have long histories and aren’t confused with dairy. What’s more, they note, the FDA doesn’t punish ""peanut butter"" for using the dairy term ""butter."" But the FDA in 2008 and 2012 did tell two makers of drinks labeled ""soy milk"" that under its regulations, such labeling was inappropriate because the products did not contain ""milk"" as defined by the agency. ""Soy drink"" or ""Soy beverage"" would be better, the agency said at the time. That -- and regulatory language allowing the FDA to declare a product misbranded and try to block its sale -- help Baldwin’s case. Federal regulations are part of the United States Code that is the law of the land. But to the frustration of the dairy industry, the agency has not consistently enforced that line of reasoning, allowing use of ""soy milk"" and ""almond milk"" and many others. Rebecca Cross, a San Francisco-based regulatory lawyer for food product companies, said the FDA may be viewing labels on a case-by-case basis and allowing use of dairy terms on plant-based products so long as the use is not misleading. Nathan Beaver, a food and drug lawyer with Foley & Lardner in Washington, D.C., explained that foods such as soy milk that have no FDA-written ""standard of identity"" must choose a ""common or usual"" name for their products. Courts, though, have jurisdiction over disputes on the issue and therefore get final say on the meaning of the FDA rules. On milk, courts so far have found that cow’s milk competitors are not misbranded if their names don’t confuse consumers, said Cross. The nutrition comparison Dairy alternatives, Baldwin said, ""contain a range of ingredients and nutrients that are often not equivalent to the nutrition content of dairy products."" This is a bit tricky to evaluate given that beverages labeled as some kind of ""milk"" now come from such diverse sources as soy, almonds, cashews, hemp, rice, oats, coconut and sunflowers. For help, we turned to Vandana Sheth, a registered dietician and spokesperson for the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, a leading organization of food and nutrition professionals. For starters, Sheth noted that dairy products can be a good source of calcium, vitamin D, protein and other essential nutrients. Soy milk provides close to the same amount of protein as cow’s milk. Rice milk typically provides minimal protein and is higher in carbohydrates. Almond milk is usually quite low in protein and also less calorically dense, she said. Plant protein tends to be of a lower quality than dairy proteins, though soy is close, said John Lucey, a food scientist who directs the Center for Dairy Research at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Our own review of labels found that soy and almond beverages, like cow’s milk, are all relatively low calorie, low carbohydrate, low sodium drinks. They are all heavy with calcium. But they feature a different mix of vitamins and minerals, and fat content. Examples: soy milk has a lot of folate, while cow’s milk typically has none; cow’s milk contains some Vitamin C, but the soy, almond and hemp drinks we examined have none. Almond and soy milks feature some iron and fiber -- nutrients typically not found in cow’s milk. ""All the products profile differently,"" said Susan Levin, a registered dietitian and director of nutrition education for the Washington, D.C.-based Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. Bottom line: Baldwin’s nutrition observation is on target, based on a comparison of milk products. Our rating Baldwin claimed that imitation dairy products made from plants often differ nutritionally from the real thing, and labeling them ""milk"" or ""cheese"" or ""yogurt"" is ""against the law."" The nutrition point is accurate, and the legal point is partially so." Claim: "Imitation dairy products often differ nutritionally from those they mimic, and labeling them ""milk"" or ""cheese"" or ""yogurt"" is ""against the law."
Example Output:
2