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.

Paragraph: Authorities are hoping large-scale manufacturers can use their low-cost supply chains and digital design expertise, including 3D printing, and repurpose some factories in order to make up the expected shortfall in vital medical hardware. Some of Britain’s biggest aerospace and car companies have formed three teams to produce basic ventilators to help the country’s National Health Service cope with the coronavirus outbreak. Meggitt Plc, which builds components including oxygen systems for civil aerospace and military fighter programs, is leading one consortium alongside engineers GKN, Thales SA and Renishaw Plc. The other two teams are being led by carmakers McLaren, which is looking at how to design a simple version of a ventilator, and Nissan Motor Co, which is working with others to support existing ventilator producers. Ventilators, machines which move air in and out of the lungs, could be the difference between life and death for coronavirus patients suffering breathing difficulties. But getting new production up to speed will not be easy, some in the manufacturing industry said. “Precision milling and 3D printing techniques could help manufacture complex parts,” said Rene-Christopher Wollmann, program and platform director at Automobili Pininfarina, which uses virtual design software to build electric hypercars. “But this depends on how much know-how existing manufacturers (of ventilators) are prepared to share about the design of such a machine,” he added. “Another bottleneck will be assembling such machines under conditions which are adequate for the medical industry.”   The idea of using automakers to supply medical equipment got started in China, where electric car maker BYD earlier this month began turning out 5 million face masks and 300,000 bottles of hand sanitizer a day. The Shenzhen-based automaker is backed by U.S. investor Warren Buffett. Since then the idea has spread to other industries and countries. European aerospace group Airbus is working across its processes to see if its 3D printing or production facilities can be of use. “The aim is for there to be a (ventilator) prototype in two weeks and for manufacturing to start in four weeks,” one person familiar with the situation at the company said. In northern Italy, the epicenter of the virus outbreak outside China, Italian carmakers Ferrari and Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV are in talks with the nation’s biggest ventilator manufacturer to help it boost production, company officials said on Thursday. The Italian government has embarked on a big expansion of intensive care beds, many of which will require ventilators. A source familiar with the matter said sports car maker Ferrari NV would be ready to start manufacturing ventilator parts in its famous Maranello headquarters, close to a ventilator factory operated by small medical equipment maker Siare Engineering. The luxury carmaker had yet to make a final decision. “We’re talking to Fiat Chrysler, with Ferrari and (component maker) Marelli to try to understand if they can lend us a hand in this process for the electronics part,” Siare Engineering Chief Executive Gianluca Preziosa told Reuters. Siare could also benefit from the automakers’ purchasing power, Preziosa said. A spokesman for Exor NV, parent firm of both Fiat Chrysler and Ferrari, said meetings had taken place on Thursday with Siare to study the feasibility of the idea and that a decision was expected shortly. The spokesman said two main options were being considered: help Siare to engineer a capacity increase at its plant with the support of technicians provided by Fiat Chrysler and Ferrari; or outsource production of ventilator parts to the carmakers’ facilities. In the United States, the federal government is in talks with Detroit auto giants General Motors Co and Ford Motor Co about how they can help expand ventilator production, the companies and White House officials said on Wednesday. It would not be the first time Detroit retooled auto plants to confront a national crisis. During World War Two Ford, GM and the former Chrysler stopped building cars and directed their factories and engineers to mass-produce airplanes, tanks and other weaponry at unprecedented levels, earning Detroit the nickname the “Arsenal of Democracy.”  On Wednesday, U.S. President Donald Trump said he would invoke the Defense Production Act, a law dating back to the Korean War of the 1950s which grants the president broad authority to “expedite and expand the supply of resources from the U.S. industrial base,” which could allow the government to speed production of masks, respirators, ventilators and other needed equipment. Ford CEO Jim Hackett told employees in a town hall meeting that Ford is working on building ventilators if the idea is feasible. GM CEO Mary Barra spoke to White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow about the issue after the company announced it would suspend North American production through March 30. Separately, Tesla CEO Elon Musk used his Twitter account to offer his company’s services. “We will make ventilators if there is a shortage,” Musk tweeted, responding to a suggestion that the billionaire repurpose a factory for the task. The comment immediately drew hundreds of replies urging him to act. Claim: World's governments draft manufacturers for virus treatment arsenal.
From Washington to London, Beijing to Rome, governments are drafting automakers and aerospace manufacturers to ramp up production of ventilators and other medical equipment to bolster what most experts say is an inadequate arsenal of coronavirus treatment tools.

Paragraph: "The story mentioned that the test carried a $399 price tag. Of course there are larger cost perspectives. If this diagnostic test truly has value, it might lead to more targeted therapy – perhaps decreasing overall medical costs. If it is a poor test, it may increase medical costs beyond the initial $399 for the test itself. The story included discussion about how this test might be of benefit; it did not include quantification of benefit (i.e. :how much faster could it enable a clinician to make a diagnosis?) though one of the points of the story was that the actual benefit of this test was somewhat imprecise. Lastly – the statement that any information is good is a red herring. However, we’ll again give the story the benefit of the doubt on this criterion. The story discussed problems associated with false positive or false negative results. It mentioned that physicians might not have the appropriate training to understand what to do with the results of the test and could make, what an expert quoted in the story described as ""foolish decisions"" The story mentioned that this and other genetic test kits prey on individuals’ deepest anxieties. That said – there are many more harms possible. Creating the precedent for direct marketing of lab tests – even if the results go to the doctor carries significant risks. It could prey on peoples’ insecurities, cause financial harm, adversely affect the patient-clinician relationship, and lead to other family members of test positive patients (family members without symptoms) getting a meaningless test due to worry. It was good that the story pointed out that there is little oversight for the accuracy of genetic test kits. Overall the story did a good job; it gave data such as 1% rate of genetic abnormality in unaffected vs. 3% in bipolar patients. It said, ""The report that accompanies those results instructs doctors that a positive test means patients are two to three times more likely to have bipolar disorder."" If the reporter had gone the next step, it would have been even better. For example, if someone has no symptoms of bipolar disorder, then the likelhood of current bipolar is 0% – so a 2-3 time increase in risk is still 0. For someone with many symptoms, the risk of bipolar disorder might be 50-60% (rough estimate) and an abnormal test might increase that substantially. Granted, interpreting the quantitative data for readers may be difficult but it would have been helpful to put it into terms that were easier to understand. But in discussing why the test was useful, the company founder said that it was important ""even if it just helps a little bit"". The story should have noted that this lack of quantification of benefit is problematic. We’ll give the story the benefit of the doubt on this criterion. The story did not engage in overt disease mongering. The story included quotes not only from the scientist who developed the test discussed, but from several experts in the field. The story did not make clear how diagnosis of bipolar disorder with the test vs. without the test differed. However it would appear that this may have been intentional as it isn’t actually clear how diagnosis of this disorder is dramatically altered in the era where this test is available. The story mentioned that this was a commercially available product. (Though it failed to mention that this test would likely not be covered by insurance, it also did not imply that it would. This, of course, will affect availability.) The story was clear that the test for bipolar disorder it described had been commercially available for about a month. It also mentioned that there about 1000 other test kits (for other genetic traits) which are available. Does not appear to rely on a press release." Claim: At-home gene test stirs up debate
This is an excellent story that used a concrete example (i.e. bipolar disorder) to highlight the pitfalls involved with the use of genetic test kits for gene alleles. Rather than write a story heralding the first commercial availability of a test to identify genetic markers associated with risk of bipolar disorder, this was a thoughtful piece that presented both the hope and the hype associated with the product. While failing to provide concrete estimates for the benefit from the product or diagnostic alternatives, the story painted an accurate picture of the uncertainty for deriving benefit.

Paragraph: In a review in the New England Journal of Medicine, scientists from the charity Cancer Research UK (CRUK) said hiking taxes by a large amount per cigarette would encourage people to quit smoking altogether rather than switch to cheaper brands, and help stop young people from taking up the habit. As well as causing lung cancer, which is often fatal, smoking is the largest cause of premature death from chronic conditions like heart disease, stroke and high blood pressure. Tobacco kills around 6 million people a year now, according to the World Health Organization (WHO), and that toll is expected to rise above 8 million a year by 2030 if nothing is done to curb smoking rates. Richard Peto, an epidemiologist at CRUK who led the study, said aggressively increasing tobacco taxes would be especially effective in poorer and middle-income countries where the cheapest cigarettes are relatively affordable. Of the 1.3 billion people around the world who smoke, most live in poorer countries where often governments have also not yet introduced smoke-free legislation. But increasing tobacco tax would also be effective in richer countries, Peto said, citing evidence from France, which he said halved cigarette consumption from 1990 to 2005 by raising taxes well above inflation. “The two certainties in life are death and taxes. We want higher tobacco taxes and fewer tobacco deaths,” he said in a statement. “It would help children not to start, and it would help many adults to stop while there’s still time.”  While smokers lose at least 10 years of life, quitting before age 40 avoids more than 90 percent of the increased health risk run by people who continue smoking. Stopping before age 30 avoids more than 97 percent of the risk. Governments around the world have agreed to prioritize reducing premature deaths from cancer and other chronic diseases in the United Nations General Assembly and in the WHO’s World Health Assembly in 2013. They also agreed to a target of reducing smoking by a third by 2025. The CRUK analysis found that doubling the price of cigarettes in the next decade through increased taxes would cut worldwide consumption by about a third by that target, and at the same time increase annual government revenues from tobacco by a third from around $300 billion to $400 billion. This extra income, the researchers suggested, could be spent on boosting health care budgets. Peto noted that the international tobacco industry makes about $50 billion in profits each year, saying this equated to “approximately $10,000 per death from smoking”. “Worldwide, around half a billion children and adults under the age of 35 are already - or soon will be - smokers, and many will be hooked on tobacco for life. So there’s an urgent need for governments to find ways to stop people starting and to help smokers give up,” said Harpal Kumar, CRUK’s chief executive. He said the study, which examined 63 research papers on the causes and consequences of tobacco use in many different countries, showed tobacco taxes are “a hugely powerful lever”. They are also potentially a triple win, Kumar said, cutting the number of people who smoke and die from their addiction, reducing the health care burden and costs linked to smoking and at the same time increasing government income. Claim: Trebling tobacco tax 'could prevent 200 million early deaths'.

Trebling tobacco tax globally would cut smoking by a third and prevent 200 million premature deaths this century from lung cancer and other diseases, researchers said on Wednesday.