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: Austria has closed schools, restaurants, bars, theatres and other gathering places, including non-essential shops. People have been told to stay at home and work from there if possible. The country has reported 108 deaths and more than 9,000 cases, fewer than its neighbours Italy and Switzerland and within its health system’s capacity so far, but Kurz told a news conference its intensive care capacity could be exceeded by mid-April. “Many cannot imagine what is heading our way within weeks, but the truth is that this is the calm before the storm. And to tell how horrific that storm can be, you can look at our neighbour Italy,” Kurz said, referring to hospitals unable to cope with the number of sick people, and hundreds of dead a day. The rate of infection remains “far too high”, Kurz said, adding that less than medical-grade masks would be distributed this week, probably from Wednesday. “As of the moment, these masks are handed out in front of supermarkets it will be compulsory to wear them in supermarkets,” Kurz said, adding that the aim in the medium-term was for people to wear them in public more generally as well. While the masks would not protect the wearer against infection, they would stop them sneezing or coughing on others and potentially infecting them, he added. The World Health Organization has, however, been sceptical about such measures. “There is no specific evidence to suggest that the wearing of masks by the mass population has any particular benefit,” Dr Mike Ryan, the WHO’s top emergencies expert, told a news conference later on Monday while adding that he was not aware  of Austria’s measure specifically. “In fact there is some evidence to suggest the opposite in the misuse or (not) wearing a mask properly or fitting it properly or taking it off and all the other risks that are otherwise associated with that.”  Austria is also carrying out tests on a representative sample of 2,000 people to get a clearer understanding of how much of the population has been exposed to the virus, Kurz said, adding that Austria was one of the first countries in Europe to do so. The results will be available at the end of the week. Claim: Austria to make basic face masks compulsory in supermarkets.

Answer: Austria will require shoppers to wear basic face masks in supermarkets in a bid to slow the still too-rapid spread of the coronavirus, Chancellor Sebastian Kurz said on Monday.


Question: Paragraph: "Patients used to pay $10,000 a year for cancer drugs, but now they’re paying $10,000 a month, according to HBO talk show host Bill Maher. That’s a message circulating on Facebook recently, promoted by the ""Bill Maher Fanpage."" A reader asked us to check it out. The quote comes from the Oct. 2 episode of Real Time with Bill Maher, where Maher discussed Turing Pharmaceuticals, the company that jacked up the cost of a life-saving drug from $13.50 to $750 essentially overnight. ""Not that (Turing CEO Martin) Shkreli is unusual for the pharmaceutical industry,"" Maher said on his show. ""Fifteen years ago, cancer drugs cost an average of $10,000 a year. Now it’s $10,000 a month because this cartel owns the U.S. government every bit as much as Mexican drug lords own theirs."" It’s well known that the cost of health care is on the rise, but has the annual cost of cancer drugs really increased so dramatically in just a decade and a half? Maher’s team sent us links to some news articles about the rising cost of cancer drugs, and we tracked down information that speaks to his claim. The best information we could nail down is the cost of anticancer drugs at launch, the initial price when the Federal Drug Administration approves a drug. These are the sticker prices set by the pharmaceutical companies, not the prices patients actually pay out of pocket, which are reduced by insurance payments, patient assistance programs and other discounts. Costs increases, though, are often passed on to consumers. Maher has a point that cancer drug costs are on the rise. We charted the launch costs of cancer drugs the FDA approved since 1999, using a list compiled by Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. The second half of Maher’s statement -- that cancer drugs now cost about $10,000 a month -- is also on solid ground. Of drugs approved in 2015, the monthly average cost is $11,319. And experts in the field often cite that $10,000 figure themselves. Because many cancer drugs are not administered to patients for a full year, it’s difficult to determine an average annual cost, so the first half of Maher’s statement -- that they cost about $10,000 a year 15 years ago -- is hard to nail down. To his point, though, the monthly cost of a new drug was dramatically lower in 2000 than what it is now at about $4,634. One of the news articles that Maher’s team sent us is an academic article in the Journal of Oncology Practice that supports his statement. The report reads, ""The average cancer drug price for approximately one year of therapy or a total treatment duration was less than $10,000 before 2000."" Maher’s statement is ""in the ballpark,"" if not an understatement, said Rena Conti, a health economist at the University of Chicago who researches cancer drug prices. In a 2015 paper Conti authored with three other leading health economists, she examined the launch cost of anticancer drugs controlled for inflation and the benefit to the patient (how much it prolongs life expectancy). For example, in 1995, anticancer drugs cost $54,100 for an additional year of life, the study found. In 2005, drugs cost $139,100 for the same benefit, and the price grew to $207,000 in 2013. In the United States, pharmaceutical companies set their own drug prices. What’s pushing them to increase the costs? It’s not necessarily that cancer drugs are getting better and are thus worth more. Conti’s research concluded that just about one-fifth of the cancer drug cost increase can be attributed to a better product. There are two primary forces behind annual cancer drug cost increases, Conti said: First, pharmaceutical companies estimate a ""zone of indifference"" -- based on last year’s prices, how much more would buyers be willing to pay? Second, rebates and discounts for drugs have also increased over time, and this creates an incentive for drug companies to increase their costs alongside the discounts. Pharmaceutical companies defend drug price increases by emphasizing that the revenue funds innovative research and that drugs lower overall health care costs by treating illnesses. Because there’s no formal price regulation and competition in the industry is rare, ""It really is a system where there’s no downward pressure on drug prices,"" said Peter Bach, director of the Memorial Sloan Kettering Center for Health Policy and Outcomes in an interview with Fortune. Our ruling Maher said, ""15 years ago, cancer drugs cost an average of $10,000 a year. Now it’s $10,000 a month."" The average annual cost of a drug isn’t easy to calculate, given the way cancer drugs are scheduled; many drugs aren’t used every month for an entire year. So the first half of the statement is hard to verify, though we did find one academic source that cites a similar figure. However, Maher has a point that the cost of cancer drugs has increased dramatically since 2000, when the average monthly price of a cancer drug, when it first hit the market, was about $4,600. In 2015, the monthly cost is over $10,000. Maher’s numbers are a little squishy, but they’re in the ballpark." Claim: 15 years ago, cancer drugs cost an average of $10,000 a year. Now it’s $10,000 a month.

Answer: "Maher said, ""15 years ago, cancer drugs cost an average of $10,000 a year. Now it’s $10,000 a month."" The average annual cost of a drug isn’t easy to calculate, given the way cancer drugs are scheduled; many drugs aren’t used every month for an entire year. So the first half of the statement is hard to verify, though we did find one academic source that cites a similar figure. However, Maher has a point that the cost of cancer drugs has increased dramatically since 2000, when the average monthly price of a cancer drug, when it first hit the market, was about $4,600. In 2015, the monthly cost is over $10,000. Maher’s numbers are a little squishy, but they’re in the ballpark."


Question: Paragraph: The latest health ministry figures on Sunday show that the death toll from coronavirus in Brazil rose to at least 25 from 18 the day before, a rise of 39%, and the number of confirmed cases now stands at 1,546, up from 1,128. In an interview with CNN Brasil on Saturday night, Bolsonaro also expressed his frustration with several states’ measures to essentially shut down commerce and restrict people’s movement, saying they have gone too far and are damaging the economy. “I think Mandetta was exaggerating,” Bolsonaro told CNN Brasil, referring to health minister Luiz Henrique Mandetta, who said on Friday that Brazil’s fragile healthcare system will collapse under the weight of coronavirus by the end of April. Bolsonaro said “collapse” was the wrong choice of words. “What we’re doing is lengthening the infection curve. I don’t believe in a collapse,” he said. Bolsonaro tweeted on Sunday that the government is distributing around 10 million coronavirus tests, half of which have been dispatched this month. Sao Paulo state, Brazil’s richest and most populous, on Saturday said a statewide quarantine order would take effect on Tuesday and last through April 7, shutting down all but non-essential businesses and services. Retailer Via Varejo said its 1,000-plus stores of white goods chains Casa Bahia and Ponte Frio are closing indefinitely, meaning thousands of brick-and-mortar shops of Brazil’s most recognizable chains now have their shutters down. A Datafolha poll in Sunday’s Folha de Sao Paulo newspaper showed that an overwhelming majority of Brazilians support many of these drastic measures to beat the spread of coronavirus, although opinion is much more divided on business shutting down. Some 82% said they agree with the suspension of church services, a decision Bolsonaro, who was elected into office with massive support from evangelical Christians due to his conservative social agenda, has heavily criticized. Evangelical churches were shut or deserted on Sunday in some of Brazil’s major cities, with many switching to broadcasting services online or via their radio and television channels. The massive doors of the Temple of Solomon, a 10,000-seat place of worship belonging to the Universal Church in Sao Paulo, were closed during what is usually one of their busiest times. Security guards patrolled outside telling visitors that services at the church were suspended for two weeks. Reuters visited five of Sao Paulo’s biggest evangelical churches - all were closed. Ailton Pinheiro, a member of the administrative team at the Assembly of God church in Brasilia, said pastor Hadman Daniel is giving sermons two or three times a week via his Facebook page and that the church will remain closed as long as it is told. “Everybody realizes the situation. Everyone has accepted it calmly,” he said in the church’s deserted car park. Claim: Brazil's Bolsonaro plays down coronavirus risk as cases top 1,500.

Answer:
Brazil’s President Jair Bolsonaro has denied the country’s healthcare system will collapse next month, contradicting his own health minister as the number of deaths in the country jumped 39% and confirmed cases topped 1,500.