TASK DEFINITION: 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.
PROBLEM: Paragraph: In July 2020, readers asked us about news articles claiming that a couple in Radcliff, Kentucky, had been placed under house arrest for refusing to sign an agreement to self-isolate and quarantine, after one of them tested positive for COVID-19. Elizabeth Linscott told WAVE 3 News that, although she had no symptoms, she got tested for COVID-19 as a precaution before a planned visit to her parents in Michigan in July. According to Linscott, after she tested positive the “health department” sent her a document for her signature, in which she was asked to “agree to comply to call the health department … prior to leaving my house for any reason.” Linscott told WAVE 3 that she refused to sign the document because of a provision that she said required her to notify public health officials in advance of traveling to the hospital for care, but that she was not refusing to self-isolate in principle, adding “I have to go to the ER, if I have to go to the hospital, I’m not going to wait to get the approval to go.”  Linscott’s husband Isaiah said that a few days after his wife refused to sign the agreement, officers from the Hardin County’s Sheriff’s Department and a public health official visited the family’s home and produced three written orders, for the couple and their daughter, effectively forcing each of them to quarantine at home. WAVE 3 reported that the Linscotts were “ordered to wear ankle monitors.” The family’s story was covered by national news outlets including The Associated Press, Fox News, and the New York Post. In response to our inquiries, the Hardin County Sheriff’s Office confirmed, without naming the Linscotts, that on July 16 its officers had “delivered Notices and Orders to Isolate and Quarantine,” as a result of a court order. In response to our inquiries about the Linscott case, the Hardin County District Court provided Snopes with a copy of the three isolation orders that the Sheriff’s department served upon the Linscott family. The isolation orders, dated July 16 and signed by Hardin Circuit Court Judge Ken Howard, specify that each of the Linscotts were ordered to isolate at home for 14 days, by virtue of a petition from the Lincoln Trail District Health Department, which covers several counties including Hardin County. That petition outlined the following: The “Self-Isolation and Controlled Movement Agreed Order” asks the recipient to agree to several provisions, including: “As long as I do not require hospitalization, I will self-isolate at home, reducing contact with all others as much as is practicable” as well as “I will not leave my house without the approval of the Department for Public Health” and “I will not travel by any public, commercial or healthcare conveyance such as ambulance, bus, taxi…without the prior approval of the Department for Public Health.” On July 15, the district health department filed its petition with Hardin Circuit Court, and the following day Judge Howard issued an injunction ordering the Linscotts to comply with the provisions of the order. The ruling was based in part on the “nature of the disease,” as well as Linscott’s positive diagnosis, of course, but Howard also specified that his decision to grant the isolation order was also partially based on Linscott’s “conduct,” noting that she had “declined to voluntarily agree to isolate… and has conveyed that she will leave her home to get supplies and do errands which she considers necessary.” Howard also ordered the couple to wear ankle monitors, to be installed by a company called Envivo Health, and ordered the district health department to pay for the monitors and ensure the family has “adequate provisions of food, medicine or other necessities during the period of confinement.” The isolation order issued by the district health department, and the injunction signed by Howard, were both based on Kentucky state law. Specifically, Chapter 212, Section 245(6) of the Kentucky Revised Statutes states that: “County, city-county, and district health departments may: […] Issue written orders directed to the owner or occupant of any property, or to any person, firm, or corporation whatever, commanding, within the time and manner specified in the order, compliance with applicable public health laws of this state and all regulations of the Cabinet for Health and Family Services or the county board of health. Notwithstanding the provisions of this section and KRS 212.210, any health officer may institute and maintain mandatory or prohibitory injunction proceedings in the appropriate Circuit Courts of this state to abate nuisances that are or may be a menace to the health of the people of the state or community, and to compel compliance with the public health laws of this state and the rules and regulations of the Cabinet for Health and Family Services and the county board of health and the orders described in this section or in KRS 212.210.” Title 902, Chapter 2, Section 50 of the Kentucky Administrative Regulations further states that: “Whenever any person has been implicated as a possible reservoir or possible source of infection of any communicable disease, the local health department or the Cabinet for Human Resources shall employ such measures as are necessary to secure adequate isolation, restriction of employment or other control procedures that may be necessary to insure cessation of transmission of infection.” Based on the evidence provided to Snopes by the Hardin County Sheriff’s Office and Hardin Circuit Court, it’s true that the Linscotts were indeed ordered to remain confined to their home for 14 days, after Elizabeth Linscott contracted COVID-19 and subsequently refused to sign a “Self-Isolation and Controlled Movement Agreed Order.” Hardin Circuit Court did indeed order the couple to be fitted with ankle monitors to ensure their compliance, and the isolation order papers were given to Isaiah Linscott during a visit from the Hardin County Sheriff’s Office. Most of the basic facts of the case were therefore accurately reported in the news articles mentioned above. Claim: A Kentucky couple were placed under house arrest in July 2020 after a woman diagnosed with COVID-19 refused to agree to self-isolate because it would require her to get prior approval to go to the hospital.

SOLUTION: "What's true: Elizabeth Linscott and her family were ordered to remain confined to their home for 14 days after she tested positive for COVID-19 and refused to sign a ""Self-Isolation and Controlled Movement Agreed Order."" The couple were ordered to wear ankle monitors. What's false: In an interview, Linscott claimed she objected only to a provision in the isolation order that she believed would prevent her from going to the hospital without prior approval. However, in her earlier written response to the isolation order, Linscott never mentioned going to the hospital, and instead objected on broader, principled grounds, writing ""There is no pandemic"" and ""It's my right and freedoms [sic] to go where I please."""

PROBLEM: Paragraph: Repeated attacks on treatment centers by armed militiamen and community members who think Ebola is a conspiracy against them have hampered the response to the second-deadliest outbreak of the hemorrhagic fever in history. In the latest attack, on a hospital in the city of Butembo, a senior World Health Organization (WHO) epidemiologist from Cameroon was killed and two others wounded last Friday. At a protest on Wednesday in Butembo, the biggest city to be affected by the current outbreak, dozens of Congolese doctors and nurses marched behind a banner reading “Ebola exists” and urged authorities to take additional security measures. “If our security is not guaranteed, we will go on strike from the first week of May,” Dr. Kalima Nzanzu said, reading from a memo to Butembo’s mayor, Sylvain Kanyamanda. Kanyamanda told Reuters that he understood the health workers’ frustrations and that the government was determined to respond to their demands. The latest outbreak of Ebola, which was declared last August and is Congo’s tenth since the virus was discovered in 1976, is believed to have killed 880 people and infected nearly 500 more in North Kivu and Ituri provinces. The military prosecutor’s office in North Kivu said on Wednesday that authorities had captured the suspected ringleader of last week’s attack, as well as about a dozen other suspects. Prosecutors believe the assailants belong to an armed group called the Patriotic Union for the Liberation of Congo (UPLC) based on a tract left at the hospital threatening health workers. Dozens of militia are active in eastern Congo’s borderlands with Rwanda, Uganda and Burundi, where they run lucrative rackets and fight over land, ethnicity and mineral resources. Claim: Ebola first responders threaten strike if security not improved.

SOLUTION: Health workers in one of the epicenters of eastern Democratic Republic of Congo’s Ebola outbreak threatened on Wednesday to go on strike as early as next week if authorities don’t do more to protect them.

PROBLEM: Paragraph: The state’s attorney general had filed the lawsuit, seeking $17 billion to address the impact of the drug crisis on Oklahoma. It had been considered a bellwether for other litigation nationwide over the opioid epidemic. “The expectation was this was going to be a $1.5 billion to $2 billion fine,” said Jared Holz, healthcare strategist for Jefferies & Co. “$572 million is a much lower number than had been feared.”  J&J said it would appeal the decision. Shares of J&J were up 2% in extended trading following the decision, after an initial gain of more than 5%. Other drugmakers that sell opioid painkillers and are defending against similar lawsuits also rose after-hours, including Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd (TEVA.TA) up 2.6%, and Endo International Plc (ENDP.O), up 1.4% higher. Opioids were involved in almost 400,000 overdose deaths from 1999 to 2017, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Since 2000, some 6,000 Oklahomans have died from opioid overdoses, according to the state’s lawyers. Roughly 2,500 lawsuits have been brought by states, counties and municipalities nationally seeking to hold drugmakers responsible for opioid abuse nationwide. Oklahoma’s case was the first to go to trial. Some drugmakers have chosen to settle cases. In holding J&J liable after a seven-week, non-jury trial, Judge Thad Balkman of Cleveland County District Court in Norman, Oklahoma, said the state proved that J&J’s misleading marketing and promotion of its Duragesic and Nucynta painkillers created a public nuisance. “The opioid crisis is an imminent danger and menace to Oklahomans,” Balkman said. Oklahoma wanted J&J to help it address the epidemic for the next 30 years by funding addiction treatment and prevention programs. Balkman said in his written ruling that the award covered only one year of addressing the crisis because Oklahoma did not demonstrate the time and costs needed beyond that. Lance Lang, a 36-year-old recovering user of opioids turned activist in Oklahoma City, said it was “short sighted” for the judge to have only ordered funding for a year. “There’s going to be people struggling with this for years,” he said in an interview. J&J said it will ask that the award be put on hold during an appeal process that could stretch into 2021. The company also said Oklahoma failed to show that its products and activities had created a public nuisance. “You can’t sue your way out of the opioid abuse crisis,” Sabrina Strong, a lawyer for J&J, said at a news conference after the verdict. “Everyone must come together to address this. But J&J did not cause the opioid crisis.”  The case was brought by Oklahoma Attorney General Mike Hunter, who alleged that J&J’s marketing practices helped fuel the opioid epidemic by flooding the market with painkillers. “Johnson & Johnson will finally be held accountable for thousands of deaths and addictions caused by their actions,” Hunter said. The trial came after Oklahoma had resolved claims against OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma LP in March for $270 million and Teva in May for $85 million, leaving J&J as the lone defendant. The verdict came as two Ohio counties prepare for a scheduled October trial before a federal judge in Cleveland. About 2,000 lawsuits out of some 2,500 filed nationwide are consolidated in the case in Cleveland. Endo International Plc (ENDP.O) and Allergan Plc (AGN.N) last week agreed to pay $15 million to avoid going to trial in October in a case by two Ohio counties, subject to court approval. Some plaintiffs’ lawyers have compared the opioid cases to litigation by states against the tobacco industry that led to a $246 billion settlement in 1998. Joe Rice, a lead plaintiff’s attorney for municipalities in the federal litigation, said if the Oklahoma award were extrapolated to other states, it could mean an annual abatement cost of around $38 billion. “It does indicate that if I’m in the pharmaceutical business, I’ve got to think long and hard about annual payments of my share of that,” he said. The judge overseeing the federal litigation in Ohio has been pushing for a global settlement. J&J, which is among multiple pharmaceutical companies that are defendants in the federal litigation, said it remains “open to viable options” to resolve the Ohio case, including through settlement. During the Oklahoma trial, lawyers for the state argued that J&J carried out a years-long marketing campaign that minimized the painkillers’ addiction risks and promoted their benefits. The lawyers called J&J an opioid “kingpin” and argued that its marketing created a public nuisance as doctors over-prescribed the drugs, leading to a surge in overdose deaths. J&J countered that its marketing claims had scientific support and its painkillers accounted for a tiny fraction of opioids prescribed in Oklahoma. The company said in a statement that since 2008, its painkillers accounted for less than 1% of the U.S. market, including generics. Teva said the ruling supported its rationale for settling the case before trial, and said it was preparing to defend itself in the upcoming trial in Ohio. Purdue, which is also among the defendants in the Ohio litigation, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Claim: I still live in the same working-class neighborhood I grew up in.

SOLUTION:
An Oklahoma judge on Monday ordered Johnson & Johnson (JNJ.N) to pay $572.1 million to the state for its part in fueling an opioid epidemic by deceptively marketing addictive painkillers, a sum that was substantially less than investors had expected, driving up J&J’s shares.