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: "The story had a sidebar explaining the cost of Bod Pod testing in Puget Sound locations ranges from $25 – 50. The story indicated one might benefit from the information generated by BOD POD measurement by helping set realistic weight loss goals. It did not actually provide the reader with any information about whether evidence exists demonstrating that it is of benefit for weight loss or improvement in adiposity-related risks. The story indicated that obtaining body composition information could be anxiety or guilt provoking. Although the story stated that ‘Data suggest the BOD POD is accurate’, it didn’t actually indicate what sort of evidence exists documenting this. While there may be evidence that the BOD POD is ""accurate"" the story did not state whether the evidence is solid or controversial. Most importantly, the story did not address the question as to whether there is any quality evidence that knowing your body fat percentage is truly helpful in improving your health. There also wasn’t any evidence presented about how effective it is to measure body fat percentage prior to engaging in a weight loss program in terms of whether it helps people lose weight. The story did not engage in overt disease mongering. In fact, it concluded that having the test is ""not a good idea if the number will be just one more thing to obsess over or feel guilty about."" Both professionals interviewed were from the private commercial sector – one from a center that uses the Bod Pod (hardly an independent voice on the topic) and one who is a book author. The story would have been enhanced with the inclusion of insight from a clear expert in the field of body composition assessment. The story did a very nice job of running through the various techniques for measuring body composition and even included a link to an online calculator of body mass index (BMI). The story explained that body composition measurement with the BOD POD is hard to find because there are few locations with the apparatus. The story accurately portrayed the BOD POD as a piece of equipment that had been around for a while. We can’t be sure if the story relied largely or solely on a news release." Claim: What are you made of? The BOD POD knows all

Answer: This story did a fine job of explaining the various ways body composition can be measured and what the measurement means and how it might be used. But a major shortcoming of the story was that it did not do a good job of providing a critical appraisal of the evidence behind the BOD POD device. Do we really know that it is worthwhile to measure our body fat percentage? At what cost? If it is so beneficial, why doesn’t my health care provider have a BOD POD in the office? What do clinical experts in body composition measurement say about the evidence that the BOD POD is a more useful tool than the body mass index? All unanswered, but important, questions for this story to address. This may be a case where our star ratings are deceptively high.


Question: Paragraph: Scientists at Vienna University medical school’s Institute of Hygiene and Applied Immunology came to the conclusion after analyzing the water quality at 21 “holy” springs and 18 fonts at churches and chapels at various times of year. Only 14 percent of the water samples from holy sources showed no fecal contamination, and none of the springs could be recommended as a source of drinking water, the study presented to a conference in Vienna this week found. The springs held not only fecal contamination - likely the result of poor hygiene - but many also had agricultural nitrates and bugs that can cause inflammatory diarrhoea. “We need to warn people against drinking from these sources,” microbiologist Alexander Kirschner said in the study. Kirschner said the healing effects ascribed to holy sources arose from the hygienic conditions of the Middle Ages, when water quality in urban areas was generally so poor that people constantly contracted diarrhoea or other conditions. “If they then came across a protected spring in the forest that was not as polluted and drank from it for several days, their symptoms would disappear. So although in those days they were drinking healthier water, given the excellent quality of our drinking water today, the situation is now completely reversed.”  The study noted some ways to help address the problem, including regularly replacing holy water in church fonts. One Italian priest has invented a holy water dispenser that dispenses drops of holy water rather than having the faithful dip a hand in, it noted. Claim: Holy water in Austria unsafe to drink: researchers.

Answer: Holy water at religious shrines and churches in Austria is often contaminated with fecal matter and bacteria, researchers have found, advising the faithful not to drink it, especially in hospital chapels.


Question: Paragraph: "During a March coronavirus briefing, Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick said the state has one of the lowest coronavirus death rates in the country — a trend he said he hopes will continue through April. ""If you look at the death rate in Texas, per capita of 29 million people, we're one of the lowest in the country,"" he said. ""But we need to continue that for the rest of April. And even be better at that."" The first issue here is that Patrick is conflating two calculations in his statement: the death rate for the coronavirus and the number of coronavirus deaths per capita in Texas. The death rate of a particular illness or disease is calculated by dividing the number of fatalities by the number of confirmed cases of the illness. A geography’s total population isn’t a factor. It is possible to look at the number of coronavirus deaths per capita, but it says less about the danger posed by the virus than the death rate. To give Patrick a fair shake, we’ll take a look at both of these figures and how Texas compares to other states. Patrick did not return a request for comment seeking clarification on his statement. ""The death rate is generally a function of the number of people infected,"" said Dr. Myron Cohen, director of the Institute for Global Health and Infectious Diseases at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, in an email. ""We are often unsure of this because this depends on sampling, and the tests deployed."" For this reason, we’ll also look at the number of tests administered by each state. As more tests are administered and more cases are identified, the death rate for the virus will change. Given that the number of cases and fatalities is constantly changing, this fact-check will use data from March 31 — the day Patrick made his statement. Along these lines, it is important to remember that the death rate at this point in time is just a snapshot. ""Case fatality rates are not constant. They can change considerably during an epidemic if, for example, it is discovered that there are many more milder cases than originally thought,"" according to a statement from the World Health Organization to PolitiFact at the end of March. The WHO also noted that the rate may vary across different geographies due to ""demographic factors, for example differences in the age structure of the population."" End of March numbers At the time of Patrick’s remarks, there were 3,266 confirmed cases of the coronavirus in Texas and 41 related deaths reported by state health authorities. This puts the approximate death rate for the virus at 1.26%, meaning 1.26% of people who tested positive for the virus died. Looking at all 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, Texas is among the areas with the lowest coronavirus death rate. Eleven states had a lower death rate when Patrick made his statement, including several with just one death: Wisconsin (1.18%), Missouri (1.06%), Tennessee (1.03%), South Dakota (0.93%), New Hampshire, (0.82%), West Virginia (0.62%), Utah (0.56%), North Carolina (0.53%), Hawaii (0.47%) and Wyoming, which had reported zero coronavirus deaths on the last day of March. ""It appears that Texas is among the states with low coronavirus deaths, but that is still true of large portions of the U.S. at this point,"" said Dr. Dhitinut Ratnapradipa, an environmental health professor at Sam Houston State University. At the time of Patrick’s claim, 29 states had a death rate of less than 2%. The state with the highest death rate on March 31 was Louisiana, with about 5,237 confirmed coronavirus cases and 239 deaths, a rate of 4.56%. Patrick’s statement also referenced deaths ""per capita of 29 million people"" in Texas. Texas is among the states with the fewest deaths per capita, based on March 31 coronavirus data and 2018 1-year population estimates from the Census Bureau’s American Communities Survey. When Patrick spoke, there had been fewer than one coronavirus death for every 100,000 people in Texas. The state with the most deaths per capita at the time was New York, with about eight deaths per 100,000 people. But Texas is also among the states that have administered the fewest number of coronavirus tests per capita. At the time of Patrick’s statement, Texas had administered 42,992 coronavirus tests — about 150 per 100,000 people. New York had administered about 1,050 tests per 100,000 people, or 205,186 tests in total. ""The number of confirmed cases is directly related to testing,"" Ratnapradipa said in an email. ""There is likely widespread community infection of people with no or mild symptoms who are not being tested. This means that we cannot accurately calculate a COVID-19 fatality rate."" Cohen said it is important to remember that the current pandemic is ""dynamic and growing, worldwide"" and that declaring any kind of victory over the virus ""is probably a bad idea at this point in time for most places on the planet."" Since Patrick made this claim, the number of coronavirus-related deaths in the state has almost doubled, the state confirmed more than 1,000 additional cases and administered more than 10,000 additional tests. Our ruling Patrick said looking at the coronavirus ""death rate in Texas, per capita of 29 million people, we're one of the lowest in the country."" Patrick’s statement equates the death rate for coronavirus and the number of coronavirus deaths per capita in Texas, two different calculations. It is true that, at the time of Patrick’s statement, Texas was among the states with the lowest coronavirus death rate (and those with lowest number of deaths per capita) — but not by much. There were 29 states with a death rate of less than 2%. Experts cautioned that the actual coronavirus death rate cannot be accurately calculated until more people have been tested — and Texas is among the states with the lowest number of tests administered per capita. Patrick’s comparison is accurate based on the information available at the time of his statement, but his claim needs clarification and is missing important context about testing." Claim: Dan Patrick Says for the coronavirus, “the death rate in Texas, per capita of 29 million people, we're one of the lowest in the country.

Answer:
Patrick's statement confuses the calculation for the coronavirus death rate, which is based on the number of fatalities and the number of confirmed cases. Using the correct calculation and data from the day of his remarks, Patrick is right that Texas is among the states with the lowest death rate for the coronavirus — but the difference is slight. At the time, 29 states had a death rate of less than 2%. Texas is also among the states that has administered the fewest number of tests for the virus, and experts cautioned that the actual death rate for the virus cannot be calculated until more people have been tested.