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: Chemical engineer Glenanne Johnson was terminated from her position as a lab manager at the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center following her complaints about mouse droppings and dead rodents, KOB-TV reports. Johnson said the work environment got her sick and she later tested positive for Hantavirus — an infectious disease spread by rodents. The university would not comment on why she is no longer employed. But lab director Michael Stanley told the station when Johnson first reported the problem and shared pictures of the working conditions, he temporarily shut down the labs. “We want to respond if we see a problem. We want to take care of it and fix it because it’s very important to us that everybody go home safely every day,” said Stanley. Claim: Scientist: Complaints about rodent infestation led to firing.

Answer: A New Mexico scientist says she was fired from a New Mexico Tech lab job after complaining about a rodent infestation.


Question: Paragraph: That’s when the 37-year-old nurse and mother got scared for her family. “I couldn’t sleep that night. I thought, ‘If I brought this home to my mom, she’s probably going to die, and it’s probably going to be my fault.’ So I had to find a different way,” Neuburger said. To protect her family, Neuburger moved from her parents’ home, where she had been living with her son after a recent divorce, and into a camper. Even though she doesn’t know when she’ll be able to hug her 11-year-old boy again, she’s glad she chose to self-isolate — especially since she began feeling sick five days after that hospital scare. Holed up in the camper as she awaits the results of a COVID-19 test, Neuburger is among countless doctors and nurses around the world who are choosing to move to hotels, tents, garages and other temporary housing to protect their loved ones — even as they risk exposing themselves to a virus that has claimed tens of thousands of lives, including a number of medical workers. Hotels, some business owners and people who run Airbnb rental homes are among those offering lodging, sometimes for free, to doctors and nurses needing to self-isolate. Social media is full of efforts to match medical professionals with temporary housing. One Facebook group, RVs 4 MDs, connects RV owners with medical workers. In Ireland, a real estate company has used Instagram to offer up empty flats. The extra layer of isolation means those who are risking their own health to save the lives of others are now sacrificing even more as they resign themselves to virtual contact with their kids, parents, spouses and others they would normally fall back on for emotional support during this stressful time. “It’s upsetting — even though you know it’s the right decision to leave your family,” said Mica Sosa, a floor nurse at an oncology unit at a Phoenix hospital, who moved into a friend’s empty condominium a few weeks ago. “It’s so bizarre to turn around and walk away from the people you normally run to.”  Events Sosa knows she will miss: Easter with her 4-year-old son; her mom’s 71st birthday; and her own 7th wedding anniversary. Some colleagues thought she was moving too soon. But with her mother’s age and her own husband in his 60s, Sosa didn’t want to wait until Phoenix had a surge in cases to take precautions. “Why wait until you are New York to get that radical? You need to protect yourself now,” she said. “I think everyone needs to look at their own family situation and decide what’s best for them.”  For most people, the new coronavirus causes mild or moderate symptoms, such as fever and cough that clear up in two to three weeks. But the virus can lead to more severe illness, including pneumonia, and death for some, especially older adults and people with existing health problems. Outside Portland, Maine, a pregnant Joy Engel is staying home with a toddler son while her husband, Dr. Ben Hagopian, lives in a friend’s empty in-law apartment. “We fought hard for this pregnancy and we weren’t willing to take the risk,” Engel said. For Neuburger, the gravity of the coronavirus took hold in one shift in the intensive care unit at the Minnesota hospital where she works. She felt her mask leaking as she cared for one patient, but she kept doing her job and switched to a protective respiratory device when she could. Then came the patient whose ventilator tube came apart. On the way home from work, she called her dad. She told him to take her son, Xander Ponkin, upstairs, while she went directly to the basement where she had been staying. She kept away from the rest of her family until she could move into a camper two days later. “My dad made me give him a hug even though I didn’t want to. He said, ‘What happens if you get sick and die? I won’t see you again,’” she said. She used Facebook to find the camper, and plans to pay its owner $200 a month. It’s now parked in the driveway of her former in-laws, who are caring for Xander, in the Twin Cities suburb of St. Paul Park. She has been able to play with him in the yard — at a distance. They also use video chat to play games, and she watches from her window as he shoots baskets outside. The hardest part, Neuburger said, is not being able to give him a hug. “I’m making the best of it. I’m trying to,” she said. “Sometimes I just sit here and cry. But then … I feel like I sleep better knowing I’m not possibly infecting my family.”  ___ Associated Press writer David Sharp in Portland, Maine, contributed to this report. Claim: Doctors, nurses leave homes to protect families from virus.

Answer: Lisa Neuburger was caring for a patient with the coronavirus when the person’s ventilator tube became detached. As she worked to help the patient, she knew fluid from the person’s lungs could be spraying into the air, possibly exposing her to the virus, despite the protective gear she was wearing.


Question: Paragraph: The story does not report the price of compression stockings [which range from $20 to $75 per pair through online retailers]. This is a surprising omission. Because in the UK these stockings are so commonly used, the costs of treatment for the population are significant. Even in the US where use is less common, the costs are meaningful. Further, there are costs associated with treatment of skin ulcers and sores which the stockings cause. These should have been mentioned as well. The story adequately describes the study population, size and methodology, and clearly states the key finding–that use of the stockings did not reduce risk of blood clots. It also mentions the important secondary finding, that use of the stockings significantly increased risk of skin problems. The story reports on the harms of stroke patients using compression hose, which include skin problems and blisters. The story is based on a randomized clinical trial done with a large population in multiple centers. The evaluators–who tested the patients for the presence of clots–were blinded, making this a very strong study design. The story could have mentioned this. The story correctly treats the findings as credible. The story does not engage in disease mongering. Having said that, the reporter could have been more diligent about keeping the risk of using the stockings in perspective, particuarly for a U.S. audience. The recommended practice in the U.S. (per medical guidelines) is to use anticoagulants to prevent blood clots in sick hospitalized patients, with stockings as a primary treatment only for those who cannot tolerate the drugs and in some other subgroups. This study is more likely to have impact on practice in the UK, where compression stockings are more commonly used. Additionally, the reader should be cautious in applying the findings among hospitalized stroke patients to patients hospitalized for other reasons. The story quotes one of the study’s authors and two independent medical experts, one of whom represents the American Heart Association. This constitutes adequate sourcing. Since the study showed that compression stockings do not reduce risk of blood clots in stroke patients, the news story should have reported on the treatments that do. Anti-clotting drugs are mentioned briefly but their benefits and risks were not explained sufficiently. The story makes clear that compression stockings are widely available to stroke patients. Compression stockings are widely used for stroke patients, particularly in the UK. No claim is made for their novelty. There does not appear to be a press release linked to this report. Claim: Study: Stockings given to stroke patients don’t work

Answer:
This news report on a study showing that compression stockings don’t reduce stroke patients’ risk of blood clots is cleanly done. The findings are of high quality, the results clearly explained, and two independent sources are used to provide context. The story could have been made stronger in three ways:  Since the story finds that stockings don’t reduce risk of blood clots in stroke patients, the reader naturally will want to know what does reduce the risk. The story makes a brief mention of anti-clotting medications, but the reporter should have invited an expert to explain how clot risk is minimized and the highest-risk patients identified. The research was conducted, published and funded mostly in the UK, where use of compression stockings for stroke patients is widepsread. But they are not used as widely in the US. The editors of US publications should have edited the story to emphasize its more limited relevance to here. The story should have mentioned costs. These stockings are fairly technical garments, carrying different compression ratings and requiring precise sizing. Retail costs run from $20 to $75 per pair. The cost implications of changing a clinical recommendation are significant. At a time when health care reformers are looking closely at costs and benefits of various treatments, health journalists can play an important role by regularly reporting on price.