TASK DEFINITION: Given a paragraph, generate a claim that is supported by the given paragraph. 1) The claim must contain information from within the paragraph. 2) A sentence within the paragraph can be used as a claim. 3) The claim should not have contradictions within the paragraph. 4) The claim should be at most one sentence long.
PROBLEM: "Like its competitors, the Times did not discuss costs–an omission which perhaps is more acceptable in this story since it clearly indicated that this is not very close to being a marketable product. Nevertheless, we would have liked to have seen some mention of the financial impact. Many patients with type 1 diabetes are not using currently available pumps and sensors because of the high cost of these devices. It seems likely that this new treatment, if it ever becomes widely available, will be as expensive or more so than the current pump and sensor technology. We applaud the Times for avoiding the term ""artificial pancreas"" in the headline and using it sparingly in the body of the story. The competing stories couldn’t resist it. We can understand why marketers and media relations people would favor this term because of its promotional value, but we don’t think it’s a good way to describe this technology in an objective piece of journalism. ""Artificial pancreas"" is misleading because we’re not really anywhere close to being able to replicate what the normal human pancreas does through artificial technology. Forgetting for a moment that the pancreas does much more than simply dispense insulin (it also produces a number of other hormones and digestive enzymes that aren’t impacted by diabetes), what’s more important is how the pancreas works in concert with the brain and other systems to regulate glucose in a very tight range. The normal human pancreas starts releasing insulin before we eat in response to complex environmental cues, whereas any artificial system would need to be told that meal is coming or react to the rise in glucose after the fact. Plus, insulin produced by the body starts acting right away, whereas insulin analogues take about 20 minutes to take effect. Put this all together and we see that the ""artificial pancreas"" will, for the foreseeable future, require human intervention to predict post-meal insulin needs and dosing or else patients will be at risk of post-meal blood sugar spikes. And it’s not at all clear that such a system will improve overall blood sugar management compared with existing methods. The term ""artificial pancreas"" conjures up a vision of totally automated glucose management and essentially a ""cure"" for type 1 diabetes. This is overselling what the technology can do. The Times waited until the last 3 paragraphs of an 1,100-word story to hint that an automated system could deliver unsafe doses of insulin. It isn’t until the last sentence that we learn that the system would need to be ""exquisitely reliable"" in order to be safe. We feel the story should have raised these issues earlier and that it could have done more to emphasize just how difficult it will be for any device to calculate insulin requirements on the fly. Insulin dosing is affected by factors ranging from how much a person has exercised to what and how much they have eaten. It’s conceivable that technology can account for all of these variables, but there are a lot ways things could go wrong, with potentially deadly results. It’s a close call, but we don’t feel the story did enough to call attention to these issues. In contrast to its competitors, which all led readers to believe there had been a fully automated system sensing glucose levels and dispensing insulin to the participants in this study, the Times noted that the insulin was dispensed by a nurse based on calculations made by a computer algorithm. The Times clearly indicated that the significance of this test was as a ""proof of concept"" that the algorithm works and is safe, not as a test of any specific device. It noted that a fully automated system combining glucose monitoring and insulin delivery was still ""hypothetical."" In addition, the Times story was the only one to draw attention to the small size of this study and the fact the findings were not statistically significant for the primary outcomes. This note of caution was completely lacking from the competing coverage. The story did not exaggerate the effects of type 1 diabetes. The story includes quotes from interviews with one of the study investigators and another researcher, and identifies both as having ties to diabetes products manufacturers. It also quotes an analyst at an investment firm. It would have been better had they included one more source who didn’t have commercial ties to specific products. The story describes currently available technology for glucose monitoring and insulin infusion. It describes the limitations of current approaches for managing insulin, especially during the overnight period. The story is a bit misleading in that it leaves the impression that all type 1 diabetics are currently using pumps at night. This is not actually the case. Most people are doing self monitoring of blood glucose and making judgement calls on whether and how much insulin to administer. However, the story does enough for a satisfactory in our view. The Times did a good job of describing the system used in this study and how close it is to being commercially available. It called the system ""experimental"" and said that it was ""not fully automated."" It said that a fully automated glucose monitor/insulin delivery system was still ""hypothetical"" and would face regulatory hurdles before it could be marketed to the public. The story describes the progression from skin prick glucose testing to continuous monitoring and insulin pumps. It places the new developments in this field on this continuum. There could have been more discussion of many of the recent advances that have made daytime hyper- and hypoglycemia less of a problem such as the newer short-acting insulins. The story did not rely on any news release."

SOLUTION: Insulin Study Could Lead to New Dosage Devices

PROBLEM: The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) said it was investigating 14 fake or unlicensed products to treat COVID-19, the respiratory disease caused by the coronavirus. So far 3,605 Britons have died from the coronavirus, the latest data show, and experts have said deaths will continue to rise until the effect of recent lockdown measures filter through and slow the spread of the disease in the coming weeks. MHRA said it was investigating fake self-testing kits, miracle cures and so-called “antiviral misting sprays”. “Don’t be fooled by online offers for medical products to help prevent or treat COVID-19,” Lynda Scammell, MHRA enforcement official said. “There is no medicine licensed specifically to treat or prevent COVID-19, therefore any claiming to do so are not authorised and have not undergone regulatory approvals required for sale on the UK market.”  Scammell added that MHRA was working alongside law enforcement agencies to combat the spread of fake and unlicensed medical products.

SOLUTION: Miracle cures? UK investigators go after fake coronavirus medicines.

PROBLEM: So far, the continent of 1.3 billion people has registered only around 1,100 cases spread across 43 countries, with 39 deaths. While that is a tiny fraction of the more than 305,000 people infected and more than 13,000 deaths worldwide, there are concerns that Africa’s relatively poor health infrastructure means it will not cope if the virus becomes established. “The flight carried 5.4 million face masks, kits for 1.08 million detection tests, 40,000 sets of protective clothing and 60,000 sets of protective face shields,” Ma’s foundation said in a statement. “The faster we move, the earlier we can help.”  It said the supplies would be distributed across Africa, going first to countries that were particularly vulnerable to the pandemic. Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed tweeted that distribution would start on Monday. Health Minister Lia Tadesse said testing for the virus was one of the most important tools for controlling the outbreak. For several days, governments across the continent have been imposing tough measures to restrict travel and close public spaces. The World Health Organisation is planning to help countries set up pop-up hospitals that could be equipped with oxygen and ventilators. Part of Africa’s battle to stop the virus from taking hold could be fought in the churches when many of its more than 600 million Christians go to pray. Kenya, which has 15 confirmed cases, on Sunday banned all religious and social gatherings, limited the number of mourners at funerals to 15, and ordered all nightclubs and bars to close indefinitely. Health Minister Mutahi Kagwe told a news conference on Sunday that all international passenger flights would be banned from Wednesday. He said a county official who had flouted quarantine rules and tested positive would be charged once his quarantine ended. “Kenyans must treat this matter with the seriousness it deserves,” he said. “In the coming week, you will be witnessing more enforcement measures.”  Mozambique’s health ministry on Sunday confirmed its first case of coronavirus - a 75-year-old man who had recently returned from Britain. Both Madagascar and Liberia declared national health emergencies over the epidemic this weekend. In Burkina Faso, U.S. Ambassador Andrew Young said he had tested positive for coronavirus in a post on Twitter. The country is the worst-affected so far in West Africa, with 75 confirmed cases, including four government ministers. Somalia said on Sunday it had reopened its international airport for two days to allow its citizens to return from 14 countries affected by coronavirus. “We shall quarantine them when they arrive, near the airport. Their shelter, beds and food have been readied,” a government spokesman said.

SOLUTION:
Coronavirus supplies donated by Alibaba's Ma arrive in Africa.