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.

Ex Input:
Paragraph: "Accusations about the responsible party behind the United States’ struggle to accelerate coronavirus testing have come from every which way and the blame has fallen, often inaccurately, on the shoulders of different public officials. In a March 13 tweet, President Donald Trump said the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention studied its testing system for decades but wasn’t prepared for a large scale pandemic, an issue that was complicated by policy changes made by former President Barack Obama. U.S. Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., retweeted Trump’s remark and added his own comment: ""Trump is once again trying to blame the previous administration for the number of tests available. This is his #DailyLie."" U.S. Rep. Dan Crenshaw, R-Houston, retweeted Schumer’s remark and said: ""It’s not Obama’s fault and it’s not Trump’s fault. We have stringent FDA regulations, long in place, that created barriers to the private industry creating a test quickly."" PolitiFact looked at a different Trump claim blaming Obama for a lack of testing. We also looked at a claim from Democrat Joe Biden about the Trump administration rejecting tests from the World Health Organization (they were never offered). Trump also inaccurately stated that any individual who wants to be tested for the coronavirus can get a test. We wanted to dig deeper into Crenshaw’s claim, which attributes the delays in the availability of widespread testing to Food and Drug Administration regulations. Justin Discigil, spokesman for Crenshaw, pointed to articles from ProPublica, the New Yorker, The Atlantic and the Washington Post, all of which highlighted the role FDA regulations played here. He added: ""Just to be clear – nowhere did we say that these regulations were the sole/only reason for the testing issue, we said that they created barriers."" A timeline of events The first confirmed case of COVID-19 in the United States came at the end of January, when a man in Washington state developed symptoms after returning from a trip to Wuhan. One month later, federal health officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said it was inevitable that the U.S. would experience a spread of the virus and urged people to take precautions. In these early days of the virus, tests were not widely distributed to local and state laboratories. Instead, testing for the new coronavirus was conducted almost entirely by the CDC — samples collected at the local level were sent to the agency. Initial test kits developed by the CDC for use in local and state labs were flawed and produced inaccurate results in some labs, meaning they couldn’t be distributed. As the agency worked to correct the tests, health officials turned to the FDA. The U.S. Association of Public Health Laboratories submitted a letter asking the agency to use ""enforcement discretion"" and authorize local and state labs to develop and use their own tests. During a public health emergency, labs and drug manufacturers must seek an Emergency Use Authorization from the FDA to use diagnostic tests and medical treatments that have not gone through the typical clearance process — to share them faster in the emergency. (These authorizations were begun in 2004 under President George W. Bush.) For laboratory-developed tests, like the ones in question, FDA policy has stated that they cannot be used in clinical diagnoses without the FDA’s approval during an emergency. Although the goal of these regulations is to ensure only accurate lab tests are conducted, health officials have said they prevented them from quickly responding to the virus. One doctor in a Seattle lab described the process for getting an Emergency Use Authorization from the FDA and said the agency asked for a level of testing that didn’t make sense in the context of an emergency, according to a GQ profile. A doctor in North Carolina told NBC News that she had developed a test using the World Health Organization’s protocol but had yet to receive the use authorization from the FDA, putting the state ""way behind"" in its ability to test patients. On Feb. 29, the FDA announced a change in the process: Labs would still need to seek the agency’s approval for their tests, but the labs could begin testing while waiting for the official green light. On March 16, (three days after Crenshaw made his claim) the FDA announced another change to its policies and put state officials in charge of coronavirus tests developed by laboratories in their states, meaning labs would engage with state officials and not the FDA. It also removes the requirement for these labs to apply for an Emergency Use Authorization for their tests. The changes also expand which labs and manufacturers are included in FDA guidelines and which kinds of tests can be developed. ""We believe the unprecedented policy set forth in today’s updated guidance, which addresses laboratories and commercial manufacturers, will help address these urgent public health concerns by helping to expand the number and variety of diagnostic tests, as well as available testing capabilities in health care settings, and reference and commercial laboratories,"" reads a release from the agency. After the changes After the FDA announced changes to its policies, Labcorps and Quest Diagnostics both announced plans to start testing for the new coronavirus, crediting changes in federal policy with their ability to do so. ""We applaud the FDA for providing the flexibility for innovative, quality lab developed tests to be brought to patients and providers quickly to advance effective response to the coronavirus outbreak,"" said Steve Rusckowski, chairman and chief executive officer of Quest Diagnostics, in a statement. But even as state and local authorities move to ramp up testing, the number of available tests is still lacking. In Austin, for example, there is still a gap between available test kids and demand for testing, as officials prioritize testing for health care workers, people living in nursing homes and people at high risk for complications from the virus. Our Ruling Crenshaw said in a tweet that longstanding FDA regulations ""created barriers to the private industry creating a test quickly"" for the coronavirus. Crenshaw’s statement is accurate. FDA procedures adopted in 2004 meant laboratories had to seek the agency’s approval before developing and using tests in communities, a policy many health care officials have said prevented the country from taking early action in response to the novel coronavirus. It is important to keep in mind that other factors have contributed to the low levels of testing for the virus, beyond the FDA regulations. But Crenshaw’s statement is accurate." Claim: Dan Crenshaw Says longstanding Food and Drug Administration regulations “created barriers to the private industry creating a test quickly” for the coronavirus.

Ex Output:
Food and Drug Administration regulations in place since 2004 require labaratories to get an Emergency Use Authorization from the agency to use diagnostic tests and medical treatments that haven't gone through the typical clearance process. The policy was intended to speed up the process, but researchers reported significant delays between seeking an application and getting approval and these regulations played a role in that. The FDA has since changed the regulations to allow labs to start utilizing tests before receiving clearance.


Ex Input:
Paragraph: Britain’s legal bookmakers reported high interest Tuesday in the names Alexander, James and Arthur. They also noted speculation about the name Spencer, the maiden name of Harry’s late mother, Princess Diana. Royal babies usually have a string of names, opening the way for endless betting possibilities. “Following a flurry of bets last evening, Alexander is now the new favorite at the top of our name betting and the one we are fearing the most,” said John Hill of the Coral betting agency. Alexander has 4/1 odds at Coral, while Arthur is 6/1 and Albert, James and Spencer are all 8/1. Choosing Spencer as a first or middle name is seen as a way for Harry to honor Diana, who died in a Paris car crash in 1997 when he was only 12. Before he married Meghan last year, Harry spoke about his desire to pay tribute to his mother’s memory during the wedding ceremony. Others believe Meghan could choose a name that reflects her American biracial heritage. One Twitter user suggested Marvin — for the late singer Marvin Gaye. The infant, known only as Baby Sussex for the moment, was born Monday at 5:26 a.m. at a yet-undisclosed location. In a gushing announcement of the birth, Harry said he and Meghan are “thinking” about names and hinted that an announcement might be made Wednesday or shortly thereafter. The couple is also expected to pose with their newborn or release a photo on their Instagram account at some time and to publicly name godparents for the child. The new arrival is the eighth great-grandchild of Queen Elizabeth II, who smiled when asked about the baby’s arrival at a luncheon Tuesday. Asked if life is good, the 93-year-old monarch said: “Yes, thank you.” The baby boy is the first of her great-grandchildren to have an American parent. His mother Meghan is the daughter of a white man and a black woman, bringing a biracial heritage to the House of Windsor. Trevor Phillips, a retired black broadcaster who headed Britain’s Equality and Human Rights Commission, wrote an open letter to the royal baby, saying his arrival reflects British society’s more open attitude nowadays and the increasing inclusiveness of the royal family. “This is a family that lives the reality of a multicultural world daily,” he said. “It’s their job: to interact with people of different backgrounds to themselves on behalf of the nation, and to treat them all with respect. I have to tell you, they are pretty good at it.” He went on to tell the baby: “Whether you like it or not, you’re going to have a special place in the nation’s heart.” Prince William, Harry’s older brother, joked Tuesday that he will be glad “to welcome my own brother into the sleep deprivation society that is parenting!” “Obviously thrilled, absolutely thrilled, and obviously looking forward to seeing them in the next few days when things have quietened down,” William told reporters. The birth produced a moment of high drama likely to be replayed for the rest of Harry’s life. The prince, who has battled mental health challenges since the abrupt loss of his mother at a young age, emerged with the world’s most satisfied grin Monday afternoon to announce the birth of his son before TV news cameras. “We’re both absolutely thrilled and so grateful for all the love and support from everybody out there. It’s been amazing, so we just wanted to share this with everybody,” the normally press-shy royal gushed. Harry also burnished his feminist credentials — and paid tribute to mothers around the world — after witnessing the birth. “It’s been the most amazing experience I could ever have possibly imagined,” he said. “How any woman does what they do is beyond comprehension.” ___ Read all Associated Press coverage of the latest royal baby at https://www.apnews.com/RoyalBaby Claim: Will new royal baby’s name honor Princess Diana? Stay tuned.

Ex Output:
Britons love to lay down their bets — and with the birth of a healthy baby boy for Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex, and Prince Harry, it’s time to focus on boys’ names.


Ex Input:
Paragraph: UCB shares dropped as much as 18.4 percent to 21.60 euros,  their lowest level since August 2003, as investors took a dim  view of the latest in a series of setbacks to hit the group. This month, U.S. health officials warned its prescription  cough medicine Tussionex could be fatal for young children if  taken frequently, though it is not approved for those aged  under six. UCB has also yet to convince regulators its would-be  blockbuster Cimzia should be cleared for treating the bowel  disorder Crohn’s disease. The European Medicines Agency on  Thursday reaffirmed its view that Cimzia should not be  approved. Last year, UCB achieved net sales of 52 million euros  ($81.7 million) from Neupro, a relatively new product. “Depending on the resolution timeline of this issue, the  full effect on UCB’s business is not yet known. Therefore,  UCB’s 2008 financial outlook is under review and will be  updated as soon as possible,” the company said in a statement. UCB said the recall decision was not the result of  contamination or toxicity but that the clinical performance of  some samples on the market was not as required. “As a result, there will be an out-of-stock situation with  Neupro in the United States in late April 2008. In the European  Union and most other regions, Neupro supply is sufficient,” it  continued. A spokeswoman said it was not clear how long UCB would be  out of stock in the U.S. and likewise when it would be able to  give a new 2008 outlook. KBC Securities said in a research note it had reduced its  forecast for Neupro sales this year to 88 million euros from  110 million, as well as its peak annual sales estimates and cut  its target price to 33.50 euros from 35.00 euros. “This disruption comes at a crucial time in the launch  phase of this important franchise,” Deutsche Bank wrote, adding  Neupro’s launch for restless legs could be significantly  delayed by regulators’ insistence that quality problems be  resolved. Neupro, delivered to patients in the form of patches stuck  on the skin, is approved to treat early-stage Parkinson’s in  the U.S. and early and late stages of the disease in Europe. The patches were launched in Europe in 2006 and in the U.S.  in July 2007. It filed for approval to treat restless legs syndrome in  the United States and Europe in December. UCB last month forecast revenue would decrease to about 3.4  billion euros in 2008 from 3.6 billion last year. Recurring  core profit (EBITDA) would be about 650 million euros and net  profit was expected to exceed 100 million. Claim: UCB recalls Parkinson's patch, reviews 2008 outlook.

Ex Output:

Belgian drugmaker UCB said on Thursday  it was recalling its Parkinson’s patch Neupro in the United  States and some batches from Europe, prompting a review of its  2008 forecast.