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.

Example Input: Paragraph: But COVID-19 is shaking her views. The woman who would identify herself only as Stephanie, citing a fear of reprisals from committed anti-vaxxers, says she is now 50:50 on taking a vaccine should one be discovered for the respiratory disease caused by the new coronavirus. “I’ve definitely thought about it,” she told Reuters by phone from the United States, also expressing frustration at what she considers the anti-vax community’s downplaying of the pandemic’s seriousness. “We’re all being affected by this virus, schools closing, young people in hospital, and they still say it’s a hoax.”  As the world’s scientists and pharmaceutical companies seek a cure for the coronavirus, other anti-vaxxers are gearing up for a fight against any potential new vaccine. “Refuse, demonstrate,” said a Briton on Facebook in response to a post asking people how they would react if a vaccine was made mandatory. But some virologists say the quest for a vaccine is so widely supported that resistance will be eroded. The latest national surveys by pollster ORB International for the Vaccine Confidence Project (VCP), which monitors attitudes to immunisation, appear to support this idea. In France, where a 2018 poll showed one in three people did not view vaccines as safe, just 18% would refuse a coronavirus vaccine now, according to the VCP poll of around 1,000 people on March 18, a day after France locked down. In Australia, the VCP’s figure was also 7%, while Britain, where about 2,000 people were polled, and Austria registered 5% opposition in polls there a week later. “If a vaccine were made available tomorrow, everyone would jump to get it,” said Laurent-Henri Vignaud, who co-authored a history of France’s anti-vax movement. That view was challenged by Mary Holland, vice-chair of American non-profit group Children’s Health Defense, which is critical of vaccination in the United States. “I don’t think this virus fundamentally changes people’s deeply held concerns about vaccines,” she told Reuters. Although the term “anti-vax” is sometimes associated with conspiracy theories, many people are simply concerned about side-effects or industry ethics. Globally, one person in five does not view vaccines as safe or is unsure, according to a 2018 survey by the Wellcome Trust health fund. reut.rs/2JTb27q  In China, where the COVID-19 disease caused by the novel coronavirus originated, surveys by VCP researchers show safety is an important cause of concern. Several scandals eroded trust, including in 2018 when a unit of China’s vaccine maker Changsheng Bio-technology Co Ltd was heavily fined for falsifying data for a rabies vaccine. The company said it was “deeply sorry” for the incident. Online discussions tracked by Reuters - including closed Facebook pages with more than 200,000 members, Twitter feeds such as the Children’s Health Defense and YouTube videos totalling over 700,000 views - showed considerable mistrust that a rushed vaccine would be improperly tested. VCP director Heidi Larson said that was also the main reason for concern around the vaccine against the H1N1 swine flu pandemic in 2009. A quickly produced swine flu vaccine in 1976 led to about one in 100,000 people developing Guillain-Barre syndrome, a paralyzing immune-system disorder, according to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Some 115 coronavirus vaccine candidates are being developed by institutes and drugmakers, according to the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovation, a global alliance financing and coordinating the development of vaccines. “I will not be injected with anything, especially a fast-tracked vaccine,” added American Vicki Barneck, 67, who believes a strong immune system is enough to combat the disease. Holland, of the Children’s Health Defense, said: “Some react fine to vaccines, others are paralysed or killed.”   However, a 2015 paper by CDC epidemiologists said “multiple studies and scientific reviews have found no association between vaccination and deaths except in rare cases.”  The VCP is running an 18-month study tracking conversation online about the coronavirus and conducting global polls to measure attitudes towards social distancing, isolation, hand-washing and anticipating a vaccine. From analysing more than 3 million posts a day between January and mid-March 2020, director Dr Heidi Larson said the vast majority were eager for a treatment, fast. “People are hungry for a vaccine,” she said. In Italy, which has been hit badly by COVID-19, the anti-vax movement has “virtually disappeared” in the discussion on the coronavirus, according to virologist Dr Roberto Burioni. For a coronavirus vaccine to be effective, wide uptake and annual vaccination is likely to be required, said George Kassianos, immunisation lead at the Royal College of General Practitioners in London. There is also the question of how to distribute fast enough to people lining up for the vaccine. “Essential workers will be the priority. Police officers, hospital workers, cleaners. Then at-risk groups,” said Douglas L. Hatch, a physician specialised in pandemic preparedness working on the COVID-19 response in San Francisco. “By the time you get to the anti-vaxxers, they’ll have trouble getting it even if they wanted to.”  (Corrects French poll data in eighth paragraph) Claim: Could the new coronavirus weaken 'anti-vaxxers'?.
Example Output: An American mother-of-three is a long-time member of “anti-vaxxer” groups online: a small but vocal global community that believes vaccines are a dangerous con and refuse to immunize themselves or their children.

Example Input: Paragraph: "Charlie Crist’s most recent TV attack labels Republican Gov. Rick Scott as ""extreme"" on women’s issues. A few days after he snagged the endorsement of Planned Parenthood PAC, Crist issued an ad showing a series of women attacking Scott’s record on abortion, birth control and equal pay for women. One of the claims in the ad is that Scott ""thinks employers should be able to deny women coverage for birth control."" PolitiFact Florida has fact-checked multiple claims about Crist’s record on abortion and we gave him a Half Flip for holding various positions on it throughout his career -- even before he switched parties to become a Democrat. Several media reports have also covered bills signed by Scott that limit access to abortion. Here we decided to fact-check Scott’s record on birth control. (Technically the Florida Democratic Party paid for the ad, but the Crist campaign announced the ad and promoted it.) Legal decisions about birth control during Scott’s tenure We reached out to Scott’s office and campaign and Crist’s campaign and searched news archives and found very few statements Scott made related to employers and birth control. Scott, a former health care executive, campaigned for governor on his opposition to President Barack Obama’s health care law in 2010. The law includes access to birth control for women; however, that was not at the root of Scott’s opposition to the law, which was more broadly about the federal government’s role and the individual mandate. We only found a couple of statements Scott made related to whether employers should be forced to provide birth control. The 2010 health care law required that most plans include birth control coverage without out-of-pocket costs. The Obama administration carved out a religious exemption for most churches and some parochial schools, finalized on Jan. 20, 2012. Certain religious entities, including Ave Maria University in Florida, opposed Obama’s rules. On Feb. 10, 2012, the White House announced a compromise: If a religious employer objected to providing birth control in its health plan, the employer would not have to pay for it, but the insurance company would pay. The next day, Newsmax TV asked Scott his thoughts about that decision while he attended the Conservative Political Action Conference. Scott said: ""This week what they did with regard to the Catholic Church and the contraceptives, it's an example [of] when government gets more involved in something they take away your rights. And this is, they are telling the Catholic Church what they have to buy. The government should not be telling us what type of insurance we should buy with our own money. The change they made makes no sense -- saying the insurance company is going to pay for it? That makes no sense. Money is going to be coming out of the Catholic institutions’ pocket to buy that insurance, so they are paying for it."" About two weeks later, Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi joined six other states in a lawsuit to challenge the birth control mandate arguing that it violated religious institutions' First Amendment rights. (Scott wasn’t a plaintiff.) In July 2012, a federal judge in Nebraska threw out the lawsuit arguing that the states failed to prove they would suffer immediate harm once that part of the law was enacted. The states appealed, but lost in 2013. On June 30, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that certain companies like Hobby Lobby that have religious objections can opt out of the birth control mandate. The companies opposed providing certain types of contraception that they believe is equivalent to inducing abortion, including morning-after pills and IUDs, while they didn’t oppose other methods of birth control. We asked a Scott campaign spokesman if Scott made any statements about Bondi’s lawsuit, the Hobby Lobby case, and in general if he thinks employers should be able to deny women birth control coverage. Spokesman Greg Blair pointed to one statement Scott made after the Hobby Lobby ruling, when a radio station reported that Scott said that the Supreme Court ""upheld our freedom of religion again this week."" ""Gov. Scott believes that people should have access to the contraception and health care they want, and he also believes in religious freedom,"" Blair told PolitiFact Florida. Our ruling Crist’s ad states that Scott ""thinks employers should be able to deny women coverage for birth control."" We struggled to find statements Scott made about employers and birth control. His spokesman didn't give us a denial when asked. We found a couple of statements which show he is against the federal government dictating to companies that they must provide birth control -- something that certain religious institutions opposed. It’s also worth noting that Scott doesn’t appear to be flat out against birth control but it’s clear that overall, he doesn’t like telling employers what they have to cover." Claim: "Charlie Crist Says Rick Scott ""thinks employers should be able to deny women coverage for birth control."
Example Output: "Crist’s ad states that Scott ""thinks employers should be able to deny women coverage for birth control."" We struggled to find statements Scott made about employers and birth control. His spokesman didn't give us a denial when asked. We found a couple of statements which show he is against the federal government dictating to companies that they must provide birth control -- something that certain religious institutions opposed. It’s also worth noting that Scott doesn’t appear to be flat out against birth control but it’s clear that overall, he doesn’t like telling employers what they have to cover."

Example Input: Paragraph: Good job on this. The story stated: However, it could have also included at least a line about the costs of following testing and possible treatment of false positives. Excellent. The story put the important number needed to screen in the third sentence of the story:  “A major government study found the screening scans saved the life of one person for every 300 current or former smokers who were scanned.”  It went on to explain “The study was stopped when it was found that the scanning group had a 20 percent lower risk of dying from lung cancer than those being screened with X-rays.” It could have done so in absolute terms, not relative risk reduction, but overall it warrants a satisfactory score. The story was clear on this: In a rarity for such a story, “downsides” was even in the headline. The third paragraph read:  “But now cancer and screening experts are worried that the limited findings will be used by private screening centers to promote the test to a broader group than was studied. That, in turn, could lead to thousands of unnecessary lung scans, causing excess radiation exposure and unnecessary biopsies and surgery.” In clear language, the article explained key points about the study, including its limitations: While the study found a benefit to scanning a specific group of high-risk smokers, that doesn’t mean other groups will get the same benefit. Good job here as well. The quote from Dr. Otis Brawley of the American Cancer Society was key:  “To take a trial that involves people at high risk for lung cancer and to extrapolate it and say it’s good for people with intermediate or low risk is not appropriate.”  Good sourcing – including quotes from one who promotes the scans and the study findings and from two who have concerns and are skeptical or worried about the impact. The one comparison was the synopsis of the key study finding: “The smokers and former smokers were given either annual CT lung scans or chest X-rays. Compared with conventional X-rays, the CT, or computed tomography, scans create a detailed three-dimensional image of the lungs. The study was stopped when it was found that the scanning group had a 20 percent lower risk of dying from lung cancer than those being screened with X-rays.” The availability of CT scanners to do lung cancer screening was clear from the story. More importantly, though, was the question of interpreting those scans – with questions raised in this excerpt about the problems even experienced radiologists at major cancer centers had: The story explained that some were already promoting the study’s findings in news releases saying that the study “should once and for all settle the controversy” about whether CT lung scans save lives. But it quickly countered that claim with observations from Dr. Otis Brawley of the American Cancer Society who said that he was worried that the few early press releases and radio advertisements are just the beginning of widespread promotion of screening lung scans. “It was sort of ominous to be working Sunday evening in my home office and this thing comes on the radio,” he said. “A lot of people run out when there is a new announcement and get the new test. We’re very frightened some people are going to be harmed because of this.”  This column did not rely on a news release. Claim: The Downside of a Cancer Study Extolling CT Scans
Example Output:
These were some of the special elements of this column:  Putting “downsides” in the headline – a rarity in a screening story. Giving the number needed to screen of 300 – that 300 needed to be screened in order to extend just one life – and putting that in the third sentence of the story. Seeking and including quotes from skeptics who are worried about the impact of the marketing of the study findings – including those from Dr. Otis Brawley of the American Cancer Society. Discussing costs. Discussing the possible “tip of the iceberg” of false positives and ensuing harms. It can be better to be late and more complete than to be first and incomplete and imbalanced. Or it at least makes sense to do a next-day or next-week followup to provide context you couldn’t give on the day the news broke. Many stories that reported on the National Lung Screening Trial a week earlier emphasized nothing but benefits of such screening. Read our earlier analysis of 8 stories on November 5. This story took the time to step back and realize that there are harms of such screening – and they put it in the headline, in the third sentence, and throughout the story. To report only the possible benefits is not complete. We need more analysis such as this.