instruction:
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: Since Nov. 1, South Carolina has recorded 86 reported cases of the contagious disease. State Epidemiologist Linda Bell said Monday that’s more than four times what state officials normally expect to see. Over the last 10 years, South Carolina averaged 19 reported cases of hepatitis A annually. Most of the new cases have occurred in Aiken County, and almost half of all cases involve individuals who reported drug use, Bell said. Still, the general population needn’t be overly concerned, she said. “But we are seeing cases higher that what we expect to see,” Bell said. “And so it’s important for us to do our prevention efforts early to reach those high-risk groups, get them vaccinated ... so that we can prevent” a severe outbreak. The State reports the Department of Health and Environmental Control is offering no-cost vaccines to high risk groups including drug users, homeless, formerly incarcerated and sexually-active gay men. Additionally, health officials recommend all children get two doses of the vaccine as part of their immunization schedule. Of the 86 reported cases in South Carolina, 59 have led to hospitalization and one resulted in death, the DHEC said. Hepatitis is a disease characterized by inflammation of the liver. It comes in many forms, including hepatitis A, B and C. As a result, individuals with chronic liver disease, like cirrhosis, are at increased risk of complications if infected and should be vaccinated. The virus-borne infection can be prevented by vaccination and is usually transmitted person-to-person through consumption of contaminated food or water, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Antibodies produced in response to hepatitis A infection last for life and protect against reinfection. Infection usually results in sickness in two to six weeks after exposure. Symptoms include fatigue, loss of appetite, stomach pain, nausea, and yellowing of the eyes and skin. Symptoms usually resolve within two months of infection, according to the CDC. State public health officials in February declared an outbreak in Aiken County after an employee at a second restaurant in Aiken tested positive for the virus, the DHEC said. Bell, though, stressed transmission by food or beverage is uncommon. “Most transmission in the United States is through person-to-person contact,” Bell said. “Good hygiene - diligently washing your hands - is a good way to prevent hepatitis A, as well as not sharing personal items,” including drug equipment, she said, adding the state has received reports of hepatitis A from people using various drugs, “everything from marijuana to meth.” Residents can schedule an appointment for a vaccination at their local health department by calling 855-472-3432 or going to http://bit.ly/2HhEsM8 . ___ Information from: The State, http://www.thestate.com Claim: South Carolina declares hepatitis outbreak.
answer:
What began as a spike in reported hepatitis A cases in Aiken County has now spread to other parts of South Carolina, prompting public health officials to declare a statewide outbreak.


question:
Paragraph: "The cost of the drug wasn’t mentioned – a big oversight. Other news stories pegged it at about $35,000 a year. Adequate job. The story explained: ""But experts stress that Benlysta is not a miracle drug: It only worked in 35 percent of North American patients tested and was not effective for patients with the deadliest form of the disease. Additionally, it did not show positive results in African Americans, who are disproportionately affected by lupus."" There was no discussion of harms. An NPR story, by comparison, pointed out that ""There are side effects, of course, and some of them are pretty serious. In clinical tests involving about 2,100 people, 11 taking Benlysta died compared with 4 getting placebo. About 6 percent of people taking Benlysta got serious infections compared with 5.2 percent on placebo."" The story offered an interesting historical perspective on the evidence: ""The company originally tested Benlysta, known generically as belimumab, as a treatment for rheumatoid arthritis. When a mid-stage trial in lupus patients failed to meet researchers’ goals in 2006, many analysts wrote the drug off and downgraded the company’s stock. But when scientists reanalyzed the data they found that the drug helped block the antibodies that cause lupus symptoms in a subset of patients."" No disease mongering of lupus. Two independent sources were quoted. Not applicable. With no other new drug approved for lupus in 56 years, there’s not been much to compare it with. The story did state that some experts thought this ""could prompt development of other drugs that are even more effective in treating the debilitating immune system disorder."" The focus of the story is FDA approval of the new drug. The headline explains that the FDA approved the first new drug for lupus in 56 years. It’s clear the story did not rely solely on a news release." Claim: FDA approves first new drug for lupus in 56 years
answer:
"Good caveats, including in the patient profiled, who said, ""It’s a bittersweet thing for me because I have friends with lupus for whom this drug won’t work. There’s no one-size-fits-all for lupus and I’m just extremely fortunate that my lupus is mild and is helped by Benlysta."" The story should have discussed potential harms and costs. As the story explained, this was not only the first new lupus drug approved in 56 years, but it could be ""a milestone that medical experts say could prompt development of other drugs that are even more effective in treating the debilitating immune system disorder."""


question:
Paragraph: "Violence - or the potential for violence -  is everywhere. It’s the reason we have police and laws, jails and federal programs to study the causes and suggest responses. It’s the reason, too, that Congress passes laws to address crime in all its facets. One of those is the Violence Against Women Act, which is intended to protect women from domestic abuse and violence. It provides federal dollars for an array of programs to achieve that goal. Oregon, for example, collected $9.4 million in 2012 for programs to protect women from violence. The law was first passed in 1994 and easily renewed in 2000 and 2005 by lopsided majorities. But it was allowed to lapse in 2011 after a partisan Congress couldn’t reach agreement. (Partisanship in Congress? Shocking, we know.) Now it’s back and in an effort to build momentum and the votes to renew it, supporters like Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore.,  have been talking about the law’s benefits. Here’s what Merkley said Feb. 7 during a conference call with reporters: ""Since 1994 when VAWA was first passed, incidents of domestic violence have dropped more than 50 percent."" That seems to be a pretty strong selling point and as the bill moves toward a final vote in the Senate it’s something that will be repeated and emphasized during debate. But is it ? First, we need a quick fly-by of the law and what it provides. The law, known by the shorthand VAWA, first passed in 1994 and was written by then senator and now Vice President Joe Biden. It acknowledged domestic violence and sexual assault as crimes, and provided federal resources to encourage community-coordinated responses to combating violence. When it was re-authorized in 2000 lawmakers expanded the definition of crime to include dating violence and stalking. Its subsequent reauthorization in 2005 created new programs to meet the emerging needs of communities working to prevent violence. Until it expired in 2011, the law was expansive and reached into every corner of the country. (Some funding continued into 2012.) Among other things, it provided grants to states and local law enforcement to beef up enforcement as well as money to prosecutors to focus on gender-based crime. Included in the array of programs and assistance, VAWA provided money for direct services for victims of sexual assault and for things like transitional housing and legal assistance. According to Merkley, all those programs made a difference. Which brings us back to his claim that since it was first enacted domestic violence has fallen 50 percent. Another fortunate development when it comes to crime is that governments at all levels but especially the federal government go to great lengths to quantify, parse and sub-total crime. Data abounds. It’s also unambiguous. ""From 1994 to 2010, the overall rate of intimate partner violence in the United States declined by 64 percent, from 9.8 victimizations per 1,000 persons age 12 or older to 3.6 per 1,000,"" the U.S. Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics reported in November 2012. The report notes that over that same period ""4 in 5 victims of intimate partner violence were female."" A report by the National Network to End Domestic Violence, an interest group focusing on the issue, comes to a similar conclusion. ""The rate of nonfatal intimate partner violence against women has decreased by 63 percent and the number of women killed by an intimate partner has decreased 24 percent,"" between 1994 and 2010. The group connects the numbers directly to the VAWA, saying the law ""has changed the way federal, tribal, state and local entities respond to domestic violence, sexual assault, dating violence and stalking."" Surveys by the American Bar Association and other independent groups had similar findings. That’s a lot of scholarship and paper, sponsored, collected and analyzed by federal and independent researchers. And while the results don’t perfectly align, all agree that the incidence of domestic abuse has dropped by more than 50 percent since the Violence Against Women Act was passed in 1994. You can quibble about the minor differences but not the accuracy of Merkley’s statement." Claim: "Jeff Merkley Says, ""Since 1994 when VAWA was first passed, incidents of domestic violence have dropped more than 50 percent."
answer:

Jeff Merkley says domestic abuse against women has fallen 50 percent since federal law went into effect