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.

Q: Paragraph: In April 2019, several news articles from around the world reported that the Australian government had a plan to cull millions of feral cats using poisoned sausages dropped by air. CBS News published an article with the headline “Australia is Trying to Kill Millions of Stray Cats by Airdropping Poisoned Sausages,” which went on to report that: “The Australian government wants to kill two million feral cats by next year — and it wants to do it by airdropping poisonous sausages. There are currently an estimated 2 to 6 million free-roaming cats across the country, and officials say they are threatening native wildlife populations.”  On 29 April, the UK Independent published an article with the headline “Australia Plans to Kill Millions of Feral Cats by Airdropping Sausages Laced With Poison” and on 26 April CNN reported that: “Australia is at war — with feral cats. By 2020, the government wants to kill two million free roaming cats, a large chunk of the total feral cat population, which is estimated to be between 2 and 6 million.” We received multiple inquiries from readers about the accuracy of these reports, and in particular about the claim that the primary or exclusive culling method was to be sausages laced with poison. The Australian government has indeed begun an initiative aimed at culling millions of feral cats, which they have described as “one of the greatest threats to Australia’s land-based mammals” and blamed for driving some species into extinction. However, the culling project was first announced in 2015 and was already well underway when reports happened to emerge about it in April 2019. In 2015, Australia’s government launched the Threatened Species Strategy. One of its four key strategies related to feral cats, and the policy outlined a target of culling 2 million such cats by the year 2020 and eradicating feral cats entirely from five of Australia’s islands, among other goals. A government report launching the initiative stated that: “The scientific evidence is unequivocal that feral cats are one of the greatest threats to Australia’s land-based mammals. They have been a major contributor to the extinction of at least 27 mammals since they were first introduced to Australia. Today, they imperil at least 142 species or more than one third of our threatened mammals, reptiles, frogs and birds. As an extinction driver for so many of our native animals, and a threat that has been relatively neglected in the past, tackling the threat of feral cats is the highest priority of this Action Plan.” By the end of 2016, researchers from RMIT University in Melbourne reported that an estimated 211,000 feral cats had been culled as part of the initiative, but also estimated that 83 percent of those animals had been shot, rather than poisoned. More up-to-date figures were not included in the progress report relating to the period ending in December 2017. In order to achieve the goal of eradicating 2 million feral cats, the first action listed by the government was the “development and deployment of Curiosity, the new humane feral cat bait.” Australia’s Department of Environment and Energy had spent years developing and testing Curiosity, a new form of sausage bait that, according to the government, is less likely than existing baits to be consumed by other animals: The Curiosity bait for feral cats has been a long-term $5.1 million project to develop a humane, broad-scale toxic bait to control feral cats in conservation areas. The Curiosity bait for feral cats comprises a small meat-based sausage containing a small hard plastic pellet encapsulating a humane toxin. Cats do not have molar teeth and tend to chew their food less so they may swallow portions of the sausage including the pellet. Most Australian native animals nibble and chew their food and are likely to reject the pellet. The pellet is designed to dissolve in the cat’s stomach and deliver a rapid dose of the toxin. The Curiosity bait for feral cats uses a new humane toxin called para-aminopropiophenone, or PAPP, which is considered best-practice world-wide. In brief, the toxicant, PAPP, converts the animal’s red blood cells to a form that cannot carry oxygen, causing death through oxygen starvation to the brain and other vital organs. It is considered to be humane and death takes minutes to hours. The RSPCA [Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals] have indicated that PAPP is a clear improvement in humaneness over previous toxins. The mode of action means that secondary poisoning of any other animals from consuming a carcass of a cat that ate a Curiosity bait containing PAPP is much less likely than when using previously employed toxins. (Although the excerpt serves to explain the Australian government’s reasoning in favoring the Curiosity bait, it does contain a factual error: cats do have molar teeth, albeit only two, and they are used for tearing flesh rather than grinding, so the overall claim that cats tend to chew less and swallow more readily than other animals, appears to stand). In government-commissioned field trials of Curiosity, the bait has been distributed on the ground in target areas using both aircraft and ground vehicles. As of April 2019, the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority was still assessing the PAPP variant of Curiosity. But the national government appeared confident it would be registered as a pest-control product, because in November 2018 the Department of the Environment and Energy solicited applications for a commercial partner to manufacture and sell the bait. Although no significant developments in relation to the culling program took place in the spring of 2019, interest in the initiative was revived by a 25 April article published by The New York Times, which bore the headline “Australia is Deadly Serious About Killing Millions of Cats,” and mentioned the existing use of another kind of sausage-borne cat bait containing the active ingredient sodium fluoroacetate, known as “1080.”  In February 2019, a group of Australian scientists questioned the basis of the government’s target of culling 2 million feral cats by 2020, in part saying the government had not given a clear metric or scientific rationale for that number; had failed to indicate how or whether the cull would lower the overall population of feral cats (given the rapid rates at which they reproduce) and also increase the populations of endangered species; and because estimates vary widely over how many feral cats actually live in Australia. In a paper published in the journal Conservation Letters, the researchers wrote: Claim: The Australian government's Threatened Species Strategy has as one of its aims the culling of 2 million feral cats by 2020, largely using a sausage bait carrying a lethal toxin. 

A: “The focus on killing cats runs the risk of distracting attention away from other threats to biodiversity, most prominent of which is widespread, ongoing habitat loss, which has been largely overlooked in the Threatened Species Strategy. The culling target is a highly visible symbol of a broader campaign around feral cat research and management in Australia, rather than a direct indicator of conservation action and success. We are concerned that progress toward the 2 million target could be misinterpreted as progress toward conserving threatened species, when the link between the two is not clear.”
****
Q: Paragraph: Dr. Neelu Pal poses for a portrait in New York, July 23, 2010. Pal was fired weeks after authorities at New York University Langone Medical Center Surgical Weight Loss Program learned she had contacted patients about the dangers of Lap-Band surgery in January 2006. REUTERS/Shannon Stapleton Pal had previously raised her concerns with hospital officials, complaining — to no avail — about the lack of care given after surgery and incomplete or inaccurate medical forms that were taken prior to surgery. She was fired weeks after hospital authorities learned she had contacted patients in January 2006. She has filed a wrongful termination lawsuit — the case is pending — and enrolled in law school. Pal, who came to the United States from India a little over a decade ago to practice medicine, says she has been blackballed from her chosen profession. The NYU bariatric surgery practice where she worked is widely considered one of the world’s most experienced. But in an interview with Reuters, Pal described the facility as a hectic Lap-Band factory. “My impression at the time was that the practice was disorganized, but once I knew more about the system, I could see what they were trying to do was get as many patients on to the operating table as possible,” she said. During her three months at NYU Langone Medical Center’s Surgical Weight Loss Program in late 2005 and early 2006, two surgeons — Dr. Christine Ren and Dr. George Fielding, who are married — implanted gastric bands into as many as 20 patients in a single day, according to Pal. Known as pioneers in the field, Fielding and Ren are also paid consultants of Allergan Inc, the Botox and breast implant maker which is the leading manufacturer of the gastric band. Though rivals have been gaining, Allergan’s Lap-Band still commands more than two-thirds of a $300 million to $400 million market. To critics, Pal’s allegations — some of which were corroborated by a New York State Health Department investigation around that time — underline the potential risks that go along with the industry’s rapid growth. And the business could soon swell even more if U.S. regulators grant permission to perform the procedure on the nation’s bulging ranks of overweight teens. Ren was an investigator in an Allergan-sponsored clinical trial studying the use of bands on teens. And the company has an application with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration seeking approval to market the device to teens as young as 14. A decision could come any time. Winning regulatory approval for the gastric band in teenagers would allow the companies that make the devices — Allergan, Johnson & Johnson and others — to target that specific age group. Today, regulators consider performing the procedure on teens “experimental” as it has not been approved for that age group. But, like any device, it may be used on teens at a doctor’s discretion. Allergan declined to comment on Pal’s lawsuit or disclose how much it pays the surgeons, though the company did confirm that both remain on the payroll. Through a NYU spokeswoman, Ren and Fielding — who have been the subject of some controversy — declined to be interviewed for this article, also citing the lawsuit. But in some medical circles, concern over gastric banding for teenagers is growing nearly as fast as American waistlines. In particular, some doctors worry about the device’s long-term safety and effectiveness. A gastric band is just what it sounds like: an inflatable silicone band placed around the top portion of the stomach to create a pouch that restricts food intake. It has become increasingly popular in the United States in recent years, and results in reasonable weight loss. The procedure is considered less invasive and risky than gastric bypass. Banding could also be an especially attractive option for teens, say proponents, because it is reversible, whereas bypass is not. The 30- to 60-minute procedure, typically performed with a laparoscope, might require one night in the hospital but can also be done on an outpatient basis. But certain data show gastric bands are less effective and more problematic for teens than adults, said Dr. Thomas Inge, chair of a government study to assess bariatric surgery in adolescents called Teen Longitudinal Assessment of Bariatric Surgery, or Teen-LABS for short. The Teen-LABS study aims to determine if adolescence is the best time to intervene with surgery. It was launched in 2007 and is expected to report results in about five years. In more than one in five teens in another study, Inge noted a high rate of “symmetric pouch dilation” — a complication in which the small pouch created at the top of the stomach by the band gets bigger, allowing patients to consume more food. This issue was reported in the journal Obesity Surgery, and later in the Journal of the American Medical Association. “We await the U.S. trial data, PMS (post-marketing surveillance) data, and confirmation from non-industry-run trials to make final recommendations,” said Inge, who is the surgical director of the weight loss program for teens at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital. As Inge and others are quick to point out, trials that studied how teens fared with a gastric band over the short term have been few, and those that were conducted show the device generally is safe and effective, with a relatively low risk for complications or death. But there is a dearth of long-term data on the outcomes from gastric band surgery. And that worries Dr. Mary Brandt, an investigator in the Teen-LABS study, among other experts. “I think there’s a fundamental problem with putting a rigid plastic object around a moving organ. You’re asking it to stay in place and not erode over a long period of time,” said Brandt, who is also director of the pediatric surgical program at Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston. “I’ll be happy to reverse my position as soon as I see 10 or 20 year data. Unfortunately, that’s not something that industry is excited about funding.”   She acknowledged a bias against gastric bands, citing a Swiss long-term follow-up study of 167 adults that showed the band failed almost a third of the time after 10 years. About a fifth of the patients required another operation. And while fewer than 8 percent reported complications in the 30 days following surgery, more than 40 percent had problems after a decade. Long-term complications included the erosion and slippage of the band, both of which might require another operation, and a dilation of the esophagus, which could result in difficulty swallowing. Infections around the port that sits below the skin and allows the doctor to add or remove saline with a syringe to tighten or loosen the band, as well as leaks, were also common. “Bands are definitely safe in the short term and definitely work in the short term. What we don’t know is about the long term,” Brandt said. “I’m not saying it should never be used. We just have to be more careful about how we’re using it.”   The Swiss study of adults who had gastric banding, published in Obesity Surgery, came to the same conclusion. Because of complications, the need for another operation, and long-term failure rates, gastric banding should be performed in “selected cases only” until more data are available, it said. Another group of 276 adults who underwent gastric band surgery had similarly disappointing results in a long-term Austrian study published in the same journal. Only a little under 54 percent of the patients still had their original band after nine years, with nearly 18 percent having the original replaced with a new one and nearly 29 percent having it removed. Of those who no longer had any band, more than half had a second bariatric operation. Gastric banding demands that teens do something they often aren’t very good at — sticking to a rigorous follow-up routine. Dr. Roberta Maller Hartman, a psychologist and Lap-Band patient herself, counsels teens and adults after receiving the gastric band. “I’ve worked with a lot of high school students and they just want to be like everyone else and go out and eat pizza with their friends,” she said. “They can, but they have to take little bites and chew a lot.”   Success depends most on a patient’s ability to modify their behavior. “The band doesn’t reduce the desire to eat emotionally. That has to be addressed,” said Dr. Maller. “Teens tend to need more hands-on, one-to-one support.”   Indeed, there are many success stories of obese teens losing weight, keeping it off and staving off a host of related illnesses, such as diabetes, arthritis and high blood pressure. Surgery — banding or bypass — has been shown to produce the most sustainable results when compared with diet and exercise. Nevertheless, critics abound. Dr. Susan Woolford, Medical Director of the Pediatric Comprehensive Weight Management Center at the University of Michigan, conducted a study, published in Obesity Surgery, to find out how readily primary care physicians and pediatricians — those in the front lines of obesity treatment — would refer patients for bariatric surgery. Nearly half, or 48 percent of the 381 physicians surveyed, said they would never refer an adolescent for any type of bariatric surgery. The controversies swirling around NYU’s influential bariatric surgery center — as well as its two top surgeons — have done little to ease concerns. An investigation by the New York State Department of Health in 2006 found that Fielding falsified data on Vincent Esposito, a 14-year-old boy who was part of the FDA-authorized study that was looking at the use of the device in obese teens. A week after Esposito’s Lap-Band surgery, he developed an infection with an abscess — a common complication with gastric banding — and returned to the NYU facility, where Fielding performed an appendectomy. The investigation by New York health authorities determined there was no evidence of appendicitis, according to the report. “They told me I was a ticking bomb,” Esposito had told the Daily Times in Salisbury, Maryland in 2007, referring to his obesity. Reached by telephone, his father said his son was “fine” and that they are being represented by an attorney and declined to comment. NYU also declined to comment. In its response to the NYDH report, the university maintained no wrongdoing, saying “the surgeon probably misinterpreted his operative findings.” In a statement at the time, the school added, “...we are persuaded that he assumed that the infection did not begin in the gastric band device.”   The response and NYU’s plan to correct the issues were accepted by state regulators. In the NYSHD report, Fielding was also cited for failing to address a post-operative patient’s persistent lack of urine output. The patient went into cardiac arrest and died 36 hours later. This was the death that alarmed Pal and led her to warn patients. The same report said the program director, Ren, had permitted two surgeons to practice without the appropriate licenses, in violation of the law. For four months, the unlicensed physicians “performed multiple surgical procedures, made pre- and post-op assessments, and wrote orders to be carried out by nursing staff,” the report said. After Ren learned she was being investigated by an internal committee, she went back and removed the name of the unlicensed surgeon from the operative report, according to court testimony. She was found to have committed professional misconduct and received a letter of reprimand that was put in her file for a year. Fielding, who got a gastric band himself in 1999, is from Australia, where he left behind multiple personal injury lawsuits, most of which have been settled. Dr. Robert “Skip” Nelson, a pediatric ethicist at FDA, said he had no specific knowledge about the incident at NYU Medical Center. If the agency did learn that an investigator has entered false data, he said, there would be an investigation. He added that if the FDA doubted the integrity of the data, they would not be considered in the decision-making process. An investigator, as doctors who run clinical trials are called, could also be disqualified as a result. Despite the reports of misconduct, the NYU Langone Weight Management Program has retained its status as a “Center of Excellence,” a designation conferred by the Surgical Review Corp, an entity created by the American Society for Bariatric and Metabolic Surgery. Surgical Review Corp CEO Gary Pratt said that he was unaware of the incidents and the NYSHD report. He said the corporation’s reviews maintain the highest standards with the goal of advancing the safety and efficacy of bariatric surgery. The company intends to put out a new list of approved bariatric clinics that treat teens later this year — which may coincide with the FDA granting approval, or not. If the FDA does greenlight it, insurers would be more likely to pay for the procedure, which costs the insured patient $2,000 to $4,000. The uninsured, making up about a third of patients who have the surgery in the United States, pay about $15,000 for the surgery. Some health professionals worry that band manufacturers will target teens with direct-to-consumer (DTC) ads on television and radio or in subway stations that have proven effective at luring people to doctors’ offices. The FDA said there is no guidance or regulation on DTC ads to young users. For Allergan, based in Irvine, California, the implications are significant. And the company is acting accordingly. It recently launched a campaign with bariatric surgeons to invite their patients to enter an essay contest and win a chance to go to Washington, D.C. to “share their personal stories with legislators and media.”   Allergan has seen its stock underperform the S&P 500 year to date. Botox remains its key product and has weathered increased competition amid the recession, while obesity intervention was hit hardest by the economy. At the same time, Lap-Band has also been slowly losing market share to Johnson & Johnson’s competing device called Realize. In 2009, Allergan’s obesity products generated revenue of $258 million, down 13 percent from 2008. Management is betting that continued investment in direct-to-consumer advertising will stimulate growth in the obesity segment, said Gleacher & Co analyst Amit Hazan. He estimates there will be 83,500 gastric band procedures in the United States in 2010, up 6 percent from 2009. Sanford Bernstein analyst Aaron Gal said FDA approval of the Lap-Band for teens could increase sales by as much as $20 million for Allergan. Even critics of gastric band surgery acknowledge that there are few good solutions to adolescent obesity. It is a mounting problem, affecting nearly 1 in 5 American teens, and many doctors believe that it should be addressed sooner rather than later when other health problems can develop. Some experts are wary but believe the benefits may outweigh the potential harm. “My conclusion is that it makes sense to intervene sooner because surgery can head off other related problems. Kids are better surgical risks, but the downside is that I suspect most teenagers are doing it less for health and more for social and psychological reasons,” said Dr. Jeffrey Zitsman, who is leading an independently funded teen study at Columbia University. Those who do it out of vanity, he cautioned, may have a harder time. “When health reasons don’t motivate them,” he said, “sometimes there are compliance issues.”   Yet, Dr. Robert Murray, director of Nationwide Children’s Hospital Center for Healthy Weight and Nutrition, argues that the heavy psychological problems obese teens carry should not be ignored. “They’ve been teased out of school, they have social issues, many are depressed, and their quality of life is equal to that of a kid with cancer,” he said. “If you get them at 14 and reverse weight and health problems, they’ve got a shot at a normal life.”   To critics, at least, the question is at how big a price. Claim: Special report: Targeting teens for gastric bands.

A: After one patient died and others suffered serious complications following Lap-Band surgery, Dr. Neelu Pal had seen enough. A petite surgical resident now aged 40, she began quietly calling patients about to undergo the weight-loss procedure at New York University’s Medical Center, telling them she feared for their safety.
****
Q: Paragraph: On April 18 2020, Tia Barracini published a tweet claiming that the United States accounted for four percent of the world’s population, but 25 percent of its deaths from novel coronavirus or COVID-19:Why does the US, with 4% of the world's population, have 25% of the deaths from Coronavirus.It's almost like someone fucked up.— 𝕋𝕚𝕒 𝔹𝕒𝕣𝕣𝕒𝕔𝕚𝕟𝕚 (@TiaBarracini) April 18, 2020That tweet had two layers — one involved specific numbers for the population of the United States and its COVID-19 mortality rate, and another was the opinion that the previous statement was due to government mismanagement of the pandemic. We are looking at the numbers.According to the United States Census, the country’s population was slightly more than 329 million as of April 24 2020, and the world population was roughly 7.6 billion:Using slightly rounded versions of those figures, we estimated the United States at 4.3 percent of the world’s total population:Google and the Center for Systems Science and Engineering (CSSE) at Johns Hopkins University (JHU) displayed tallies of the number of infections, recoveries, and deaths from COVID-19, both in and outside the United States. When we checked on April 24 2020, the statistics had been updated less than an hour prior:At the time we checked, there had been just under 194,000 deaths from COVID-19 globally:And around 51,209 in the United States:Back to the calculator. Of 194,000, 51,209 was just over 26 percent:By contrast, Italy was also hard-hit by the novel coronavirus. Just under 0.8 percent of the world’s population lives in Italy.As of April 24 2020, more than 25,000 people in Italy had died of COVID-19:That was about 13 percent of global novel coronavirus deaths, against under one percent of the world’s population:A claim that the United States had four percent of the world’s population and 25 percent of its coronavirus deaths was largely true when minor rounding was introduced. But the United States wasn’t the only country to experience a large number of deaths, as Italy was just under one percent of the world’s population and had over 13 percent of total deaths.Comments Claim: The United States accounts for four percent of the world's population, and 25 percent of global COVID-19 deaths.

A:
Does the United States Have 4 Percent of the World’s Population and 25 Percent of the Deaths from COVID-19?
****