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: In February 2018, the web site Newsner, which produces viral content, recounted the horrifying story of the death of Katie Flynn, a seven-year-old girl who was decapitated in a devastating car crash on Long Island, New York, in 2005. We received several enquiries about the veracity of the article, and a similar one published by Trending Stylist, on 28 February. Unfortunately, it’s true. In the early hours of 3 July 2005, a drunk driver traveling at 70 miles per hour the wrong way down a highway crashed into a limousine carrying several members of Katie’s family, who were returning home after a wedding. The collision caused the instant deaths of the limousine’s driver, 59-year-old Stanley Rabinowitz and seven-year-old Katie Flynn, a niece of the bride. Other passengers suffered serious injuries, including Chris Tangney, the father of the bride, whose leg was broken so badly in the crash that it had to be amputated. As CNN reported in 2008: An off-duty security officer returning home from work was first on the scene. “I approached the limo driver, and I guess I went into shock,” says New York State court officer Michael Lerardi. “It looked like an explosion. The motor, basically, was just sitting on top of him. I knew he was dead.” The limo driver, 59-year-old Stanley Rabinowitz, was killed instantly. Next to arrive was Lt. Michael Tangney, the bride’s uncle, who had attended the wedding just hours before. “I was walking to the rear of the limousine when a gentleman was coming away from it, and he said, ‘Don’t go back there. It’s bad,'” Lt. Tangney says. “I opened the rear door to the limousine and realized it was my family.” Lt. Tangney’s brother — Jennifer’s father, Chris — was lying on the floor, his legs wrapped around the service bar, broken in numerous places. The rest of the family was piled on top of each other. Jennifer’s mother, Denise, was severely injured, as was Jennifer’s husband, Neil, who tried to crawl out of the limo to get help despite his broken back. Five-year-old Grace was also trapped inside the wreckage. Jennifer, whose foot was injured, managed to climb out and was searching for Katie, who had been lying on the side seat before the crash. “We couldn’t find Kate,” Lt. Tangney says. Then, Jennifer made a devastating discovery — Katie had been decapitated by her seat belt. “Then all of a sudden Mrs. Flynn came out of the car with her child’s head in her hand,” says Michael Lerardi, one of the 70 paramedics and police officers who were called to the scene. “I got numb. I thought I was going to collapse,” says Officer Christopher Pandolfo. “I looked into the back of the limousine, and I saw Katie’s remains. She was wearing this dress, and I just started shaking.” This fact check includes links to court testimony that some readers might find disturbing. In February 2007, New York Supreme Court Justice Alan Honorof sentenced  25-year-old Martin Heidgen to a minimum of 18 years in prison on two counts of second-degree “depraved indifference” murder, and related charges. Heidgen had been drinking for several hours in Manhattan and Nassau County, before he drove his pick-up truck into the limousine. At the trial, there was some dispute over whether Katie Flynn had been wearing a seat belt at the time of the collision. Dr Michael DeMartino, who conducted Flynn’s autopsy, testified under cross-examination from the defense that his autopsy report had described her as a “rear seat unrestrained passenger,” based on preliminary information provided to DeMartino by some first responders. However, DeMartino agreed with the prosecution that Flynn’s injuries were “consistent with a child who had been lap belted and was lying down on a bench seat and thrown forward during the high-speed crash,” but also said that the injuries “might be” consistent with the girl not wearing a seat belt. Ultimately, DeMartino appeared to lean heavily toward the likelihood that Flynn had been wearing a seat belt at the time of her death, and that the seat belt getting caught around her neck may have led directly to the terrible manner of her death. He noted that had she not been wearing a seat belt, it would have been reasonable to expect much more severe injuries to the rest of her body than were actually observed, namely “very small bruising” to her left knee and elbow and some bruising on her left hand. Furthermore, the family of Katie Flynn, who were present in the limousine with her that night, adamantly insisted that she was wearing a seat belt. At the trial, Jennifer Flynn — Katie’s mother, and the sister of the bride — testified that her husband Neil had placed Katie on a bench seat in the limousine, and “seat belted her in” while she was sleeping. Chris Tangney — a retired Nassau County police officer, father of the bride, and grandfather of Katie Flynn — similarly testified that the girl had been lying down, asleep, on a bench seat in the limousine, with her seat belt buckled, at the time of the collision. In a devastating and scathing victim impact statement read out to the court, Jennifer Flynn said: Drunk driving continues because people aren’t afraid not to. Punishments are not that big of a deal. They are not severe enough because society doesn’t view it as the crime it should… Katie’s head was severed from her body. The entire front end was embedded in Stanley Rabinowitz. To clean it up and water it down so it’s more palatable for the papers and the news, the jury and the defendant is wrong. In 2010, Jennifer and Neil Flynn took part in an anti-drunk driving campaign in New York state, describing the terrible impact of Katie’s death. Claim: Katie Flynn was decapitated while wearing a seat belt, in a 2005 car crash on Long Island, New York.
Example Output: A website that publishes viral content accurately recounts the terrible story of Katie Flynn's death in 2005.

Example Input: Paragraph: The story describes the cost of the drug-coated stents compared to the older version, the bare metal stents. The story does report the risk of clotting with the drug-coated stents, however the comparison of coated and bare metal stents is the key piece of information that is missing in this story. This information should also be presented in absolute rather than relative terms. The story adequately describes the risk of clotting with drug-coated stents and of bleeding with Plavix. The story does a good job of describing the strength of the available evidence, particularly the limitations of using hospital registries as a source of data. By accurately describing the prevalence of restenosis, or narrowing of the artery after stenting, the story avoids disease mongering. The story quotes multiple experts who have differing perspectives on how the new information changes clinical practice. The story does mention alternatives such as bare metal stents, bypass surgery and medications. The story clearly states that drug-coated stents are common. The story clearly states that the drug-coated stents are new but have been widely used since they were introduced. Because the story quotes multiple independent sources the reader can assume that the story does not rely on a press release as the sole source of information. Claim: FDA Probes Safety of Popular Heart Stent
Example Output:
When drug-coated or durg-eluting stents went on the market, they immediately changed clinical practice by replacing the standard bare metal stents. The purpose of the drug-coated stent was to prevent the clogged artery from becoming clogged again. However, new reports are emerging that these stents may actually be causing some clots to form. Enough evidence is mounting that the FDA convened a panel to discuss how these new developments will affect how stents are used in routine practice. This story does an excellent job of describing the scale of the problem and quoting multiple experts who fall on different sides of the debate. The story does a good job of describing the strength of the available evidence, particularly the limitations of using hosptial registries as a source of data. By accurately describing the prevalence of coronary artery disease, the story avoids disease mongering. Furthermore, the story mentions alternatives such as bare metal stents, bypass surgery and medications. The story also describes the cost of the drug-coated stents compared to the older version, the bare metal stents. The story does report the risk of clotting with the drug-coated stents, however the comparison of coated and bare metal stents is the key piece of information that is missing in this story. This information should also be presented in absolute rather than relative terms. Overall, this was a balanced and comprehensive piece.