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.

Karen Sage of Austin, facing a Tuesday runoff with Mindy Montford of Austin for the Democratic nod for a judgeship, touts her experience as a prosecutor overseeing a new unit focused on defendants with mental illness. With no Republican opponent in November, the winner of the runoff will likely be a shoo-in for Travis County’s 299th state District Court judgeship. In a mailer sent to voters April 3, Sage celebrates the new program, saying that jail “time for non-violent, mentally ill offenders has been reduced by 50 percent.”We wondered if Sage’s statement—echoed in a TV ad she debuted Wednesday—reflects reality. Sage’s campaign initially referred us to Rosemary Lehmberg, the Travis County district attorney. Lehmberg confirmed that she asked Sage, an assistant district attorney, to helm the felony mental health unit, which was started in January 2009. Claire Dawson-Brown, the DA’s director of strategic prosecutions, said a magistrate started handling a special docket comprised of “mental health” defendants in late April 2009. To be in the program, Dawson-Brown said, defendants must usually be charged with a non-violent crime. They also must be diagnosed with major depression or considered bipolar, schizo-affective or schizophrenic, and seen as unstable in the jail. “It would be someone in a crisis situation,” she said, “or their mental illness is impairing their behavior.” Experts team to address the needs of the mental health inmates, Dawson-Brown said. She said participants get services they need in custody and when they return to the community. Besides Sage, who has a paralegal and a secretary, each defendant has an attorney familiar with mental health issues; she said the magistrate, a jail counselor and officials serving the local mental health and adult probation systems also play roles, with social workers sometimes getting involved. And how has the program affected jail stays? Sage said she reached her 50-percent reduction statement by comparing a baseline estimate that “mental health” inmates facing felony charges were averaging 106 days in jail before the program began to the 42-day average for participants in the program at the time she left the office in mid-December to run for judge. The decrease amounts to 60 percent. Dawson-Brown agreed that as of late 2008 and early 2009, the average Travis County jail stay for all its “mental health” defendants, including violent offenders, was 106 days. We pointed out that the baseline figure sweeps in the longer jail stays of individuals charged with violent crimes who aren’t automatically put in the new program, driving up the pre-program average and potentially skewing before and after comparisons. Dawson-Brown then gave us more detailed jail-stay information enabling an improved review of the change in average jail stays. Based on the new figures, we estimate that defendants who have been through the new program would have averaged 77 days in jail before the program began. The nitty gritty: We multiplied the number of affected defendants categorized by the level of felony they faced--ranging from first-degree felony charges to second- and third-degree felonies to state-jail felony charges--by the days that similarly charged defendants averaged in jail before the program began. Next, we totaled those defendant-days-in-jail and divided the total (19,432) by the number of defendants (253) to reach the pre-program estimate of an average of 77 days in jail. Through February, the magistrate had processed 253 defendants since the program’s start, according to Dawson-Brown, and they averaged 36 days in jail. Best we can tell, the average jail stay for defendants dropped by 41 days, or 53 percent.
"Karen Sage Says that under a new program jail ""time for non-violent, mentally ill offenders has been reduced by 50 percent."

“They are heroic, I think there is no other way to describe what they are doing at this moment,” said Howard Catton, a British nurse who is the ICN’s chief executive officer. Infection rates of 9% and 12-14% have been reported among health workers in Italy and Spain, respectively, and deaths among nurses there and in Iran and Indonesia, he said. “We have no doubt that the rate of infections is related in part to the lack of PPE - personal protective equipment,” he told Reuters at the ICN offices along Lake Geneva. “There is a global shortage and nurses obviously are at a higher risk given the people that they are caring for.”  The federation represents 130 national associations and more than 20 million registered nurses. The World Health Organization has called repeatedly for countries and manufacturers to step up production of masks, gloves, gowns and other equipment for vulnerable health workers amidst critical shortages. Nearly 700,000 people have been infected worldwide in the outbreak that began last December in China and has claimed more than 33,000 lives, according to the WHO. Catton said there had been problems with supply chains in hard-hit Italy and Spain, describing their health systems as “very close to being overwhelmed”. Nurses worldwide take samples from COVID-19 patients, give them medicines and oxygen, and help incubate those in serious condition. “They are working under intense pressure, often long hours, some working back-to-back shifts for days on end, even sleeping over in the hospital, the facility, in which they work.”  Some nurses have been forced to re-use their gear or make their own masks and gowns, he added. “Wearing personal protective equipment when it is available is not easy either...Simple things like going to the loo and eating are of course much more difficult,” he said. Nurses across Africa and South Asia could be at greater risk as the virus moves to poorer settings. “We are very concerned that those countries that have weaker, more fragile health care systems could very quickly become overwhelmed by this virus if it takes hold in their countries,” Catton said. Nurses in Zimbabwe, fearing for their own safety, have been on strike due to a lack of information and protective gear, he said.
Heroic nurses need full protection against coronavirus, association says.

No mention of the cost of treatment for women outside clinical trials. Some quantitative benefit mentioned of taking hormone therapy for chemoprevention. Incomplete discussion of reduced rate of side effects in raloxifene group. Mentions harms of hormone therapy, such as an increased risk of blood clots and uterine cancers. Does not mention that raloxifene, like tamoxifen, has bothersome side effects such as hot flashes and vaginal discharge, which are reported as comparable and mild to moderate in the NCI press release of the initial results of this trial. Mentions that the STAR trial was a 5-year trial, but not that is was unblinded early (around year 4) due to positive side effect profile of raloxifene. Mentions that 19,747 women were randomized to either raloxifene or tamoxifen and provides quantitative evidence of improved risk of blood clots or uterine cancers, however, both of those results were just shy of statistical significance, which is not mentioned in the article or in NCI press materials. (Source ACS: http://www.cancer.org/docroot/NWS/content/NWS_1_1x_Raloxifene_as_Good_as_Tamoxifen_to_Prevent_Breast_Cancer.asp) In addition, raloxifene did not appear to raise the risk of cataracts, which tamoxifen does appear to do. That difference was statistically significant. The story mentions equivalent comparison with tamoxifen in preventing invasive breast cancer, however, tamoxifen protected women better from non-invasive breast cancer such as DCIS (ductal carcinoma in situ) and LCIS (lobular carcinoma in situ). ” No evidence of disease mongering. Mentions that this drug is for post-menopausal women at higher than average lifetime risk of developing breast cancer. This study was partially funded by Eli Lilly. There is a a lot of Eli Lilly promotional information in this story. Of course, Indianapolis is the home of Eli Lilly. No attempt and independent corroboration with other breast cancer researchers. There was not much effort to get opinions on the study from outside sources. A lead investigator of the Eli Lilly-funded study and the president of science and technology at Eli Lilly are not unbiased sources. The story discusses the STAR trial, which compared current hormone treatment, tamoxifen, with raloxifene. It should be noted that the results here are initial findings after 4 years of raloxifene. The story could have done a better job in explaining that tamoxifen is usually taken for 5 years and there is much more long-term clinical data on safety and efficacy for this drug. It’s clear form the story that raloxifene is currently available for use in post-menopausal women to prevent osteoporosis. What isn’t clear is that use in chemoprevention would be an off-label use. This type of hormone therapy should be used in estrogen-receptor positive, post-menopausal women. Notes that use of Raloxifene (Evista) as chemoprevention is still in the clinical trial phase and that there are plans to file for FDA approval for use in preventing and treating breast cancer. Evista is already approved to prevent osteoporosis. We can’t judge if the story relied solely or largely on a news release. However, there is certainly a lot of Eli Lilly promotional information in this story. And Indianapolis is the home of Eli Lilly.

Lilly buoyed by findings on Evista