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: As the new coronavirus spreads from China, travel guidelines being issued by governments across the world all express notes of growing caution. But they contain subtle differences on where to avoid, how to behave and what to do after a trip. With few exceptions, the prevailing advice of national authorities is to avoid Hubei province - epicenter of an outbreak that has now infected 80,000 people worldwide - and to reduce Chinese travel to the bare minimum. Once inside China, Swiss travelers for example are urged by their government to avoid large gatherings and “cough or sneeze into a tissue, or use the crook of your arm”. France tells its nationals not to eat raw meat or visit animal markets. The Spanish Foreign Ministry also urges against contact with animals in China and suggests making sure that you stay at least one meter away from the next person. For travelers to Italy - the country most badly hit by the virus in Europe - the Dutch government recommends that its citizens avoid areas already locked down by local authorities and only travel to parts of the wider Lombardy region around the closed-off towns if necessary. The Finnish Foreign Ministry advice on Italy is simply to “take special care”. Differences also emerge in the advice to travelers on their return from an affected area. Germany’s main authority for infectious diseases tells those returning with symptoms from outbreak regions in Italy to see a doctor and call prior to their visit. But France asks such people not to visit the doctor but to call emergency services. Britain urges its nationals to “self-isolate” at home if they have been to the areas quarantined by Italy whether or not they have symptoms. The Danish Health Authority currently stipulates no routine quarantine or isolation of people who have traveled to China or other places hit by the outbreak. Countries outside Europe take different stances. Turkey advises against all but essential travel to China but has not yet issued travel advice on Italy. Nigeria has a voluntary two-week self-quarantine in place for all passengers arriving from China or any country with “a major outbreak”. Guidance for returning air passengers says “try to avoid” going out but wear a mask if you do. Claim: Coronavirus travel: national advice not all of a piece.

Answer: Should travelers avoid parts of the world near coronavirus hotspots? Or go - but then tread carefully? The official advice they receive may depend on whether they live in Amsterdam, Helsinki, Madrid or Lagos.


Question: Paragraph: "The story covers cost in the very last two lines. Adequate quantification of benefits seen in the study. Story says ""few eye-related complications"" were reported in the Lucentis group, but didn’t say what few means or what they were. We don’t think that’s quite adequate. Adequate job explaining how the study was done and what it means. No disease mongering in the story. One quote from the head of the National Eye Institute. But he didn’t really evaluate evidence – only talked about hope. Meantime, no mention that Genentech funded  the trial (a strength of the NYT story was its discussion of the ""pay for play"" aspect of the research) – and no mention that Dr. Bressler disclosed financial ties to Genentech. From the Times: Some doctors criticized the organizers of the trial for testing Lucentis rather than another Genentech drug, Avastin, which works in the same way as Lucentis. Although it is a cancer drug, Avastin is often used off-label for eye diseases because it is far cheaper than Lucentis, costing only $20 to $100 a dose, compared with $2,000 for Lucentis. Avastin is undercutting sales of Lucentis, which totaled $1.1 billion in the United States last year. Organizers of the trial conceded that a major reason Lucentis was chosen was that Genentech, which is now owned by Roche, agreed to provide the drug free of charge and to contribute $9 million in additional financing — but only if Lucentis were used. “Obviously you can’t underplay $9 million,” said Dr. Ferris of the eye institute, which is part of the part of the National Institutes of Health. But he said there were other factors as well, like a belief that Lucentis might have been the better drug. Dr. Philip J. Rosenfeld, a professor of ophthalmology at the University of Miami, said the decision was “clearly a case of pay to play” since Genentech’s money dictated the choice of drugs. At least the story mentioned the uncertainty about whether Lucentis is any better  than the cheaper Avastin, and mentioned an upcoming trial comparing the two in age-related macular degeneration. The story explains that Lucentis was approved 4 years ago for another cause. Story explains the drug is already approved for another use, and it also – at the very end – mentions that an older and much cheaper drug is also effective. It’s clear the story did not rely on a news release." Claim: Drug Reverses Diabetes-Related Vision Loss

Answer: The key difference between this and the NYT story was that WebMD didn’t reflect on the question of why Genentech didn’t test its cheaper Avastin against the much more expensive Lucentis. The important issue of corporate sponsorship of a clinical trial was overlooked. You want to talk about comparative effectiveness research? This would have been a good place for it.


Question: Paragraph: These planned “medical observation and monitoring services” would be staffed by nurses and other clinicians, who would monitor the clients’ vital signs, administer oxygen, intravenous fluids, and the overdose-reversing drug naloxone if necessary, the Boston Globe reported Wednesday. The clients will be able to remain anonymous and receive counseling, treatment for infections and wounds, and help with obtaining primary health care and addiction treatment. People will not be allowed to use drugs inside these centers, a marked difference from the concept of “safe consumption sites.”  The state’s Department of Public Health is seeking bids to create three to five monitoring sites. Each would serve  five to 10 people who have taken too much of a sedative, such as heroin or fentanyl, or a stimulant, such as cocaine or methamphetamine. The site locations have not yet been determined. The observation centers were part of a $5 million item in the state budget, which charges the public health department with promoting “harm reduction” to reduce the bad consequences of drug use. Claim: Massachusetts looks to open new drug-monitoring centers.

Answer:
Public health officials in Massachusetts are seeking organizations to set up centers where people can be monitored after using illicit drugs.