Given a paragraph and a claim, classify it this way: If the claim contradicts the evidence present in the paragraph, classify the claim as '0'. If the claim has multiple supporting *AND* contradicting evidences, classify the claim as '1'. If the claim has supporting evidence and the paragraph is in overall favor of the claim, then classify the claim as '2'.

Ex Input:
Paragraph: "A  post about COVID-19 is being shared in a new format on Facebook. In an audio message that a reader sent us on March 23, a woman with a British accent lists 10 ways that people can avoid being infected with the coronavirus. The message claims to be based on research from Chinese scientists. ""It was sent to me by a colleague who has a friend that works at Dr. Negrin, which is the main hospital on our island,"" says the woman on the audio message. ""It’s obviously in Spanish, so I’m just going to read it and translate it for you."" University Hospital of Gran Canaria Dr. Negrin is located in the city of Las Palmas on Gran Canaria, one of Spain’s Canary Islands. The island chain’s tourism industry has been hard-hit by the COVID-19 pandemic. Here’s some of the questionable medical advice in the audio message that caught our eye: If some of those claims sound familiar, it’s because many of them have been circulating on social media in some form since January, when the World Health Organization addressed a slew of COVID-19 rumors on Twitter. We’ve also debunked several bogus coronavirus prevention and treatment methods. But this audio message was new to us, so we decided to check out each of the five claims. All of them either lack evidence or have been debunked by public health officials. While health experts recommend drinking water regularly to stay healthy, there is no evidence that sipping some every 20 minutes can help prevent coronavirus infection. The primary way the virus spreads is through close contact with infected people and respiratory droplets, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. When someone with the coronavirus coughs or sneezes, their germs land on surfaces around them. The virus then infects people who touch those surfaces and then their eyes, nose or mouth. So to prevent contracting the coronavirus, the CDC advises people to avoid touching their face as much as possible. Other ways to prevent infection include washing your hands with soap and water, covering your coughs and sneezes with a tissue and regularly sanitizing the surfaces in your home or at your workstation. As of now, there is no specific treatment for the virus. In a tweet published Feb. 7, the WHO said it does not advise people to drink water as a way to avoid coronavirus infection. While air-drying your clothes may save you some money on your electricity bill, there is no evidence it will kill the coronavirus. We’ve rated similar claims . There is ample evidence that viruses, including human coronaviruses, don’t like heat. Influenza, for example, thrives in dry, cold weather, which is one reason the flu season typically spans from fall to spring. And high-intensity UV light can kill viruses. Here are 4 real ways to protect yourself But that doesn’t mean sun exposure kills the coronavirus. Experts told us natural sunlight doesn’t provide the UV intensity needed to kill the virus, and the WHO says on its website that COVID-19 can be transmitted in all climates, ""including areas with hot and humid weather."" Neither the WHO nor the CDC lists sunlight exposure as a method to kill the coronavirus. In fact, the WHO has debunked the claim, saying ""there is no evidence that sunlight kills the new coronavirus."" Public health officials say washing your hands is one of the primary ways to prevent COVID-19 infection. But if you’re healthy and in self-isolation, there is probably little reason to lather up so frequently. The CDC recommends washing your hands with soap and water for at least 20 seconds at a time — ""especially after you have been in a public place, or after blowing your nose, coughing, or sneezing."" On its website, UNICEF lists a few more examples of when people should wash their hands: ""after touching surfaces outside the home, including money; before, during and after caring for a sick person; and before and after eating."" So if you’re doing any of those things every 20 minutes, you may want to wash your hands. This claim is baseless. As we’ve covered before, there is evidence that human coronaviruses don’t like heat. But just as there’s no scientific proof that hot things prevent COVID-19, there’s no proof that cold things make you more susceptible. This claim is similar to one made in a fake UNICEF handout that circulated on Facebook in early March. It said people should ""stay away from ice cream and eating cold"" to avoid contracting COVID-19. In a statement, UNICEF debunked that claim. On its website, the WHO did, too. ""There is no scientific evidence that eating hygienically made frozen food and ice-cream spreads the new coronavirus,"" the organization says. There’s no evidence to support this. An article published in the New England Journal of Medicine on March 17 tested how long the coronavirus, formally called SARS-CoV-2, lived on five different surfaces: aerosols, plastic, stainless steel, copper and cardboard. ""SARS-CoV-2 remained viable in aerosols throughout the duration of our experiment (3 hours),"" the authors wrote. ""SARS-CoV-2 was more stable on plastic and stainless steel than on copper and cardboard."" On cardboard, they could not detect any after 24 hours. The coronavirus lives the longest on plastic and stainless steel — up to three days. That’s far from nine days, as the audio message claimed. And while the journal article hasn’t been peer-reviewed, its findings are similar to those of other researchers. An article published in the Journal of Hospital Infection in March reviewed what other scientists have found about the surface viability of various coronaviruses that infect humans, such as Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) and Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS), which are both similar to COVID-19. The authors wrote that scientists found some of these viruses could live for up to five days on steel, and eight hours on aluminum. Another study they cited found a SARS virus strain remaining viable for up to five days on an unspecified metal. The article did find that one strain of SARS could live for up to nine days on plastic surfaces. But two other strains of the virus remained viable for only five days or less, and MERS could live for only up to 48 hours at a certain temperature. More recently, a March 23 report from the CDC said novel coronavirus RNA was found on surfaces on the Diamond Princess cruise ship 17 days after passengers disembarked. That finding raised questions about whether the coronavirus can last longer on some surfaces than previously thought, but researchers have noted that viral RNA doesn’t necessarily mean live virus was present. A chain audio message on Facebook Messenger lists 10 ways to prevent infection from COVID-19. We fact-checked five and found them inaccurate. First, there is no evidence that sipping water every 20 minutes can help prevent coronavirus infection. There is also no evidence that exposing your clothing to the sun will kill the coronavirus. Health officials recommend that people avoid touching their face and wash their hands for at least 20 seconds at a time —  not every 20 minutes, as the message claims. There’s also no evidence that consuming cold things makes you more susceptible to the virus. Finally, while the science is far from settled, there’s no proof that the coronavirus can live for up to nine days on metallic surfaces. The best available evidence suggests that it can remain viable on stainless steel for up to three days. If you receive a chain message that you want us to fact-check, send a screenshot to [email protected] or forward it to us on Facebook." Claim: An audio message lists five ways people can prevent the novel coronavirus.

Ex Output:
0


Ex Input:
Paragraph: In such a short piece, discussions of cost are almost always missing, but they were missing as well in the competing WSJ article. The CBS story says that the study “looked” at eight women. But this is an incomplete description. The study involved 125,426 samples from which abnormal results (typically indicating a chromosomal disorder in the fetus) were detected in 3757 (3%). Ten cancers were subsequently identified in women whose babies were found to be normal despite an abnormal test result, with further analysis done on the eight women mentioned in the story. Without this quantitative data, readers have no sense of the rarity of the eight cases described or of the scope of the benefit that might be realized if such testing were offered more widely. Unlike the WSJ article, there was not even a hint that widespread use of these tests might pose harms as well as benefits, as well as higher costs and ethical dilemmas. The story focuses on the serious impact of the test on a woman’s life and on her ability to “be there” for her child as she battles her cancer. In the sense that this story was more about the potential life-saving aspect of the study for women with hidden cancers, it provides useful information. But so much copy spent on telling the woman’s story meant less space to provide all-important context. Nothing on the study’s strengths or limitations or what the research means more broadly. For example:  Non-invasive prenatal testing is a new kind of screening test that is sometimes offered to women over 35 or at risk for a child with Down syndrome. About 3% of women screened have an abnormal result suggesting a fetal abnormality. This was the first large-scale study to confirm that in a small number of such cases, the abnormal test result is caused instead by an undiagnosed cancer in the mother. The story focuses on an individual woman’s story, and provides no perspective on the rarity of her case. Although it may be an underestimate, cancer was reported in only 0.008% of the samples analyzed. The story needed some acknowledgment that this is an exceedingly rare occurrence. The story noted that the study was funded by the manufacturer of the test and that the study author quoted has a relationship with the company. That’s useful context, but we require an independent voice to meet our standard on this criterion. No one was quoted except one of the study’s authors. No alternatives to the blood tests were mentioned in any context. The WSJ story, by contrast, notes that the blood tests are now used in place of more invasive amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling to identify fetuses at risk. The WSJ also underscores the importance of having a positive blood test confirmed with one of these more invasive tests. Not undergoing testing at all might also be an option, but the story does not address this. Although the availability of these new tests is not specifically addressed, the story does note that “prenatal testing is widely used for pregnant women at risk of having babies with chromosome disorders” — implying that the new tests are one such option. We’ll award a Satisfactory on that basis. The story could also have noted that the new test are recommended by the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology for some women. Usually they are offered for women over 35 or with other risk factors for a fetus with Down syndrome or certain other chromosomal abnormalities. The story establishes what is new here and made reference to the research done at Tufts and reported in JAMA. The story may have been suggested by a release, but clearly focused almost entirely on interviews with a mother and the principal investigator. Claim: Prenatal testing can detect cancer in pregnant mothers

Ex Output:
0


Ex Input:
Paragraph: "At least among Fox News viewers, nothing boosts audience like taking President Barack Obama to task. The day after Fox News host Bill O’Reilly had an interview with Obama, O’Reilly picked up an additional 1 million viewers for his show The O’Reilly Factor. The president sat down with O’Reilly right before the Super Bowl, and the tone of the conversation itself stirred up a flurry of reactions. Here’s a small example from a moment when O’Reilly pressed Obama on the administration’s response to the attack on the American compound in Benghazi, Libya. O’Reilly: If (Ambassador to the United Nations) Susan Rice goes out and tells the world that it was a spontaneous demonstration... Obama:  Bill... O’Reilly:  -- off a videotape but your... Obama:  Bill... O’Reilly:  -- your commanders and the secretary of Defense know it's a terror attack... Obama:  Now, Bill... O’Reilly:  Just... Obama:  -- Bill... O’Reilly:  -- as an American... Obama:  -- Bill -- Bill... O’Reilly:  -- I'm just confused. Obama:  And I'm -- and I'm trying to explain it to (you), if you want to listen. No wonder that many observers described the interview as testy. Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank called it ""the roughest and nastiest exchange"" of the three times that O’Reilly has interviewed Obama. ""He interrupted the president 42 times in 10 minutes,"" Milbank said on MSNBC’s Politics Nation. Of all the words uttered in this 10-minute interview, 40 percent were uttered by O’Reilly."" We wanted to check Milbank’s numbers. Not on the interruptions, but on the word count. We pulled out our digital centrifuge and separated the O’Reilly and Obama utterances. According to our research, O’Reilly delivered 787 words to Obama’s 1,484. This gave O’Reilly 35 percent of the conversation. That’s a little lower than Milbank said but more or less in the same ballpark. We reached out to Milbank and did not hear back. To satisfy our own curiosity, we decided to compare this with another one-on-one interview between the president and a journalist. A couple of days before Obama sat down with O’Reilly, he did the same with CNN’s Jake Tapper. We subjected that transcript to the same rigorous methods and found that Tapper spoke 23 percent of the time, leaving the president the other 77 percent. The precise word counts were Tapper -- 849 and Obama -- 2,886. Milbank’s point was that O’Reilly’s interview was almost as much about O’Reilly as it was about the president. We don’t know about that, but we can say that O’Reilly spoke about 50 percent more than Tapper did in his interview. The topics in the two interviews differed greatly. O’Reilly brought up Obamacare, the Benghazi attack and the IRS scrutiny of conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status. Tapper focused on issues like immigration reform, legalization of marijuana, spying by the National Security Agency, and security at the Winter Olympics in Sochi. O’Reilly had a second installment of his time with Obama that aired the night after the Super Bowl. Milbank’s comment came on the same night, so we’re counting only the segment that had aired publicly at that point. For the record, in the second installment, O’Reilly asked the president about African-American children raised in single-parent households, school vouchers, the Keystone pipeline, a contraceptive coverage exemption for Little Sisters of the Poor, and veterans benefits. Our ruling Milbank said O’Reilly said 40 percent of the words during his interview with the president. That was a little high. By our count, 35 percent would be more accurate. O’Reilly spoke decidedly more than Tapper did in his time with Obama." Claim: Dana Milbank Says Bill O’Reilly spoke 40 percent of the words in an interview with President Barack Obama.

Ex Output:

2