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.

Paragraph: "Of more than 300 men and women who had the surgery, a third stopped playing sports entirely and 68 who were still active said they didn’t play as well as before, researchers reported in the American Journal of Sports Medicine. The anterior cruciate ligament, or ACL, is the ligament inside the knee that helps keep the joint stable. About 150,000 ACL injuries occur each year in the United States. “Less than 50 percent of the study sample had returned to playing sport at their preinjury level or returned to participating in competitive sport when surveyed at 2 to 7 years after ACL reconstruction surgery,” wrote Clare Ardern at La Trobe University in Victoria, Australia, who led the study. Ardern and her colleagues followed more than 300 men and women for two to seven years. Participants had either played Australian-rules football, basketball, netball or soccer before their surgeries. At 39 months post-surgery, 208 out of the 314 people who had the operation were still playing a sport, the researchers said. Of those 208, 68 said they played at a lower level than before their injury and 140 said they played about the same as before their injury. The remaining 106 participants either were not playing sports or did not complete the entire study. “Although almost all people returned to playing some form of sport, they did not play continuously for many years after their surgery,” Ardern told Reuters Health in an email. She also noted there may be other reasons why people stopped playing sports, such as fear of getting injured again or less confidence in performing. Of the 196 people who played competitive sports before their injury, 91 returned to their competitive sport. “This is a big injury,” said Edward McDevitt, a spokesman for the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, who was not part of the study. “Many athletes who choose surgery have a long and difficult road to face. If you’re not willing to go through it, then you might be better off just getting a brace.”   He added that while knee surgery does allow people to return to their sport, they couldn’t perform as well as doctors might wish. People who tear the ACL can either opt for physical therapy and surgery or just physical therapy alone. “Some people find that they are able to function well without surgery, provided they have adequate leg strength to support the injured knee,” Ardern said. “Other alternatives may be to avoid sports involving direction changes, jumping and landing or activities that make the knee feel unstable, or use knee braces and supports.”   McDevitt speculates that after surgery, some athletes may not have the same range of motion, preventing them from playing as before. ""I tell my patients, 'I can't make you like before, I'm not God. But I'll do the best I can to restore you back to the way you were,'"" he added. SOURCE: bit.ly/pWId18" Claim: After knee repair, half can't play sports the same.
After knee reconstruction surgery, half of people who played sports both competitively and just for fun don’t perform as well as they used to, according to an Australian study.

Paragraph: No mention of the cost of treatment. This is important if the surgery is not a permanent fix for acute sinusitis. Repeated operations and continued medications need to be compared to cost for traditional surgery. No quantitative estimate of the benefits of the new procedure. There was a study of 10 people that found “no safety concerns”, but readers should be told more about this very small group. What were the long term outcomes and did these patients eventually have to have further sinuplasty, more invasive surgery or continue to take medications to relieve sinusitits? The story mentions that a larger, randomized trial is underway to better understand the risks and benefits of sinuplasty compared to medication and traditional sinus surgery. Mentions that more information is needed and no one knows if balloon sinuplasty works as well as the more traditional surgical option for chronic sinusitis. Mentions that general anesthesia is still needed for balloon procedure and this comes with its own set of health risks. There isn’t much evidence for the story to report. The story did stress the importance of a randomized trial underway comparing medication, traditional sinus surgery and the newer balloon sinuplasty. Story describes this trial and the need for further evidence before this new procedure can be widely recommended. Mentions that this procedure should not have been FDA approved with so little quality evidence. No evidence of disease mongering. The story mentions that this procedure would be for chronic, not acute sinunitis and describes how these are different. Good balance of information on treatment options with input from otolaryngologists not affliated with the makers of the device who are able to provide perspective on the new procedure. They mention that further study is needed. There is a note that one of the physicans studying the new sinuplasty has no financial ties to Acclarent, maker of the balloon devices used in this type of sinuplasty. Mentions that this form of sinuplasty is not for everybody and that it may not prevent the need for more comprehensive surgery in which bone and tissue are removed. There is mention of other options including medication and the more traditional surgery, which is decribed as highly effective, but with a painful recovery and side effects such as scar tissue. Quantification of the incidence of this and other side effects of traditional surgery would be useful. The story is clear that the FDA approved the device but that it still needs to undergo further study via randomized controlled trials. Story mentions that this is a new procedure only offerred by 100 doctors. This story is a blananced presentation of sinuplasty and the information here does not appear to be from a press release. The are quotes from otolaryngologists not affliated with the makers of the device who are able to provide perspective on the new sinuplasty procedure. Claim: A balloon instead of a knife: Sinuplasty for ailing sinuses
This story provides a good balance of information on a new treatment option for chronic sinusitis, and there is corroboration with otolaryngologists not affiliated with the makers of the balloon device who are able to provide perspective on the procedure. The story clearly notes this procedure would be for chronic, not acute sinusitis and describes how these are different. The story explains that this form of sinuplasty is not for everybody, and that it may not prevent the need for more comprehensive surgery in which bone and inflamed tissue are removed to open the sinus passages. More information is needed on the safety and efficacy of balloon sinuplasty, and no one knows if this surgery works as well as traditional surgery for chronic sinusitis. The story mentions other options for treating chronic sinusitis, including medication and sinus surgery, which is described as highly effective, but with a painful recovery and side effects such as scar tissue. Quantification of the incidence of side effects with traditional surgery would be useful. While there is not much quantitative evidence available on the new procedure, the story stresses the importance of a randomized trial underway comparing medication, traditional sinus surgery and the newer balloon sinuplasty. There is adequate description of this trial and the need for further evidence before this new procedure can be widely recommended. There is a caveat that this procedure should not have been FDA approved with so little quality evidence: a study of 10 people that found “no safety concerns”, but readers should be told more about this very small group. What were the long term outcomes and did these patients eventually have to undergo further sinuplasty, more invasive surgery or continue to take medications to relieve their chronic sinusitis? The story explains that general anesthesia is still needed for the balloon procedure and this comes with its own set of health risks and additional costs. There is no mention of the cost of this newer procedure. This is important information if the surgery is not a permanent fix for chronic sinusitis. A cost comparison of the newer sinuplasty, which may require repeated operations, sinus medications and traditional surgery is needed.

Paragraph: "Wisconsin’s response to the coronavirus outbreak is under a microscope as cases surge and Republicans and Democrats continue to clash over what -- if anything -- to do about the increase. Tensions boiled over July 30, 2020 after Democratic Gov. Tony Evers issued a statewide face mask mandate, despite opposition from Republicans who contend the move amounts to government overreach. In the days before that, though, the state Senate’s Democratic Committee turned its frustration toward Republican lawmakers. ""While neighboring states like Minnesota, Illinois and Michigan have already implemented safety precautions like requiring individuals to wear masks, similar pleas in Wisconsin have fallen on deaf ears of Republican legislators,"" stated a July 24 news release. Lawmakers in those states have passed more COVID-19-related bills than Wisconsin’s Republican-controlled Legislature since the pandemic began. But some precautions, like a mask mandate, came from executive orders and not legislation. How does the committee’s claim stack up? Eric LaGesse, executive director of the Senate’s Democratic committee, did not respond to PolitiFact Wisconsin’s request for evidence to back up their claim. But the claim is pretty straightforward, and there has been a lot of news coverage of the state’s response to the pandemic. Here’s a recap: In March, Evers and Health Services Secretary Andrea Palm issued a series of orders to curb large gatherings as COVID-19 began to emerge in Wisconsin. Those actions culminated in a stay-at-home order on March 24, 2020, which shut down the state to help contain the virus’ spread. In April, lawmakers passed a coronavirus relief package that allowed the state to tap into extra federal Medicaid dollars and suspended a one-week waiting period for collecting unemployment benefits, among other provisions. However, the state lost $25 million in federal funding for unemployment because Republican leaders waited too long to schedule a floor session on the relief package. Evers’ administration extended the stay-at-home order on April 16 and four days later unveiled the Badger Bounce Back plan, which provided a phased approach for reopening based on testing and other public health criteria. In May, acting on a lawsuit from state GOP leaders, the state Supreme Court struck down much of the order and allowed the state to reopen without any protocols in place. After that, not much happened at the state level until the mask mandate despite a recent surge in infections and multiple daily increases of over 1,000 cases. Lawmakers have introduced 10 bills related to the pandemic in recent months, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported. The relief package we mentioned earlier is the only one that’s passed. The Democratic committee argued neighboring states -- specifically Illinois, Minnesota and Michigan -- have implemented more safety precautions for their residents. According to a database maintained by the National Conference of State Legislatures, Minnesota enacted 25 pieces of legislation related to COVID-19 through July 23 after lawmakers introduced over 200 measures. Illinois has passed 18, and Michigan approved 19. The bills touch on a wide range of issues, from COVID-19 testing to election procedures. The differences between Wisconsin and its neighbors can’t be blamed on partisan gridlock, either. While Democrats control Illinois’ state government, Minnesota’s legislature is split between both parties with a Democrat in the governor’s office. Michigan, like Wisconsin, has a Democratic governor and a Republican-controlled legislature. It’s worth noting, though, that some of the precautions in other states came about through executive orders by their governors, not action by the legislature. Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzer, for example, issued an order on June 26 requiring residents to wear face coverings -- over a month before Evers enacted a mask mandate in Wisconsin. Governors in other states also enacted stay-at-home orders similar to what Evers implemented. Wisconsin’s state Senate Democratic Committee claimed Republican lawmakers have failed to act while ""neighboring states like Minnesota, Illinois and Michigan have already implemented safety precautions like requiring individuals to wear masks."" It’s clear that Wisconsin lawmakers are behind the curve on COVID-19 compared to neighboring legislatures. Legislative bodies in Minnesota, Illinois and Michigan have introduced and passed more bills since the pandemic began. But they didn’t act alone, and safety precautions like mask mandates were ordered by their governors. That leaves us with a statement that’s accurate but needs clarification or additional information." Claim: "Say Wisconsin Republican lawmakers have done nothing ""while neighboring states like Minnesota, Illinois and Michigan have already implemented safety precautions like requiring individuals to wear masks."

Lawmakers in Minnesota, Michigan and Illinois have passed more COVID-19 legislation than Wisconsin’s GOP-controlled legislature. That said, some safety precautions in those states came about through executive orders by the governors.