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 Q]: Paragraph: In May 2020, a photograph started to circulate on social media supposedly showing a petri dish that was coughed on by a person not wearing a mask and a petri dish coughed on by the same person wearing a mask:  As the Twitter user noted, this image reportedly was taken by lab technician Katie Corley and shared to her public Facebook page. Corley’s original post was shared on May 6 along with a message to the “conspiracy theorists” who were refusing to wear masks during the COVID-19 pandemic: Visual experiment for you conspiracy theorists: I coughed on two petri dishes, one while wearing a mask and one not. Shocking! The one on the left with no growth is the one I used a mask for! The one on the right where I didn’t wear a mask is full of bacteria. So yeah, maybe cloth masks don’t give you much protection, but they protect the people around you. Maybe wear one if you insist it’s your constitutional right to eat at Chili’s. We note that many social media users who encountered this photograph made some incorrect assumptions about what it showed. For example, many people seemed to think that the petri dish on the right showed SARS-CoV-2, the strain of coronavirus at the center of the current pandemic, and that this photograph demonstrated just how effective masks were at stopping the spread of COVID-19. This photograph, however, simply shows “normal oral flora.”   In an edit to her post, Corley explained that the petri dish on the right contained “normal oral flora,” such as staph species, neisseria species, and corynebacterium. Corley also noted that viruses are much smaller than the bacterium shown in the petri dish, but noted that this small experiment demonstrated how masks can lessen droplet spread that can carry viruses. Corley added: There’s been a lot of questions regarding this experiment, so here’s some answers: 1. I used a cloth mask I made myself with disposable lab coat material. 2. I used blood agar. 3. The plate on the right looks “old” or “stale” because of the growth. Some of the organisms on this plate are alpha hemolytic, meaning they partially hemolyze blood. The agar itself is made with 5% sheep’s blood, so when it’s partially hemolyzed, it turns a dark green color. 4. As for the growth, it’s mostly viridans strep, staph species (not staph aureus), neisseria species, and corynebacterium. Pretty normal oral flora. 5. I realize that viruses are 1,000 times smaller than bacteria. The point of the masks is to prevent droplet spread, which carry bacteria as well as viruses. Corley, of course, was not the first person to notice how face masks lessened droplet transmission. Similar images showing bacteria from a person’s cough growing in a petri dish can also be seen in this article from the Microbiology Society. Rich Davis, the Clinical Microbiology Lab Directory at Providence Sacred Heart, posted a series of images of a similar demonstration: What does a mask do? Blocks respiratory droplets coming from your mouth and throat. Two simple demos: First, I sneezed, sang, talked & coughed toward an agar culture plate with or without a mask. Bacteria colonies show where droplets landed. A mask blocks virtually all of them. pic.twitter.com/ETUD9DFmgU — Rich Davis, PhD, D(ABMM), MLS 🦠🔬🧫 (@richdavisphd) June 26, 2020  Davis, like Corley, emphasized that this was not an experiment showing the efficacy of masks against the spread of COVID-19. Rather, it was a simple demonstration to show how masks lessened the spread of respiratory droplets, which can carry the disease. The British children’s television show “Operation Ouch!” also took a look at how much bacteria gets disseminated when a person coughs. While that episode did not include masks, it did compare a petri dish that was coughed on by a man with no mouth covering and a petri dish that was coughed on by a man who covered his mouth with an elbow. Here’s how the petri dish looked after it was coughed on by the man who covered his mouth (left) and the petri dish coughed on by the man who didn’t (right). As you can see, the results from “Operation Ouch!” are very similar to the results seen in Corley’s post:  Here’s the clip from “Operation Ouch!” (The cough experiment starts around the 50-second mark): A 2005 study published in the Journal of Clinical Microbiology noted that more than 700 bacterial species have been detected in the oral cavity. Covering your mouth when you cough (either with an elbow or a mask) can reduce droplet transmission and lessen the spread of potentially harmful germs. Professor Lindsay Grayson, director of infectious diseases at Melbourne’s Austin Hospital, said as much during a presentation at the Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy in San Francisco in 2009 concerning research on the effectiveness of masks in slowing the spread of influenza. The New York Times reported: “If you’re wearing a mask to prevent yourself from catching it, they’re not so effective,” said Dr. M. Lindsay Grayson, professor of medicine at the University of Melbourne and one of the study’s co-authors. “But if you’re sick with the flu and coughing and sputtering, those masks do prevent you from spraying those bugs everywhere.” The researchers asked nine study subjects with documented cases of influenza type A or B to test two different types of masks — the standard, disposable surgical masks and a more costly, respirator-style mask. The flu patients coughed into a petri dish while wearing both types of mask as well as without the mask. The dish was then tested for the presence of flu virus. When either type of mask was worn, no virus was detected on the petri dish. But how effective are masks in preventing the spread of COVID-19? While the exact efficacy of masks on the spread of COVID-19 is still undetermined, health officials do recommend that people wear masks in public because these face coverings can prevent droplet transmission. Claim: A photograph shows one petri dish that was coughed on by a person not wearing a mask and another petri dish coughed on by the same person wearing a mask. 
[EX A]: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) told us:

[EX Q]: Paragraph: According to statistics through Saturday, there were 3,395 cases — included 63 new cases reported the prior week. To underscore the outbreak, the Panama City News Herald reported the state totaled 1,175 reported cases of hepatitis A in the five previous years combined — with 548 of those cases in 2018, according to state Department of Health data. Hepatitis A can cause liver damage and is spread through such things as fecal matter. That can include transmission by people not properly washing their hands after going to the bathroom and contaminating food or drinks. Health officials urge people to get vaccinated against the disease. As of Saturday, Pasco County had the most cases in the state in 2019, with 414. Claim: Nearly 3,400 Hepatitis A cases reported in Florida in 2019.
[EX A]: Florida health officials say there were nearly 3,400 hepatitis A cases in 2019.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: "The story does not mention any costs of the experimental procedure. The story states that the new therapy eliminated the need for injections for months or years in 14 of 15 patients, thereby describing absolute benefits. The story states the new treatment is not without risks and that patients are prone to infection. However, there is no description of how severe this harm might be (could lead to death) or how frequently these occurred in the study. So, although harms are briefly mentioned, they are not adequately developed or appreciated. This is not a minor issue, as stem cell transplant can be associated with very signficant risks of infection, organ failure and even death. As an example of what can be left out in a shortened version, this line about potential harms appeared in the original LA  Times story, but was left out of the Boston Globe version we reviewed: ""Burt's research group at Northwestern has performed 170 stem-cell transplants to treat a variety of immune system disorders, and two patients have died from the treatment."" The story does not report the strength of the evidence, namely whether this was a randomized trial or something less robust. Readers also aren't cautioned about the low number of participants or the short length of follow-up which limits the conclusions that can be drawn. The story does not overembellish the nature of the condition or its burden. The article quotes a source associated with the research and also quotes a source not associated with the research. The article discusses the alternate, standard thereapy for type 1 diabetics, which is insulin injections. The article states the treatment is experimental, letting readers know this procedure is not available at your local doctor's office just yet. The story states the research suggests a new avenue of treatment for people with Type I diabetes letting readers know this would be a new treatment (although the story states stem cell transplantation has been used with other conditions). Because the story had input from several sources, including one not involved in the research, it's safe to assume it did not rely solely or largely on a news release." Claim: Stem cell treatment used for diabetes
[EX A]:
"The story we reviewed was a 724-word version that the Boston Globe published, taken from an original Los Angeles Times story that had 1,253 words. While our overall review is quite favorable, the shorter Boston version left out important context for the story – most notably on the potential harms of the procedure in question. We have written about this practice before. The article describes using adult stem cell transplantation to eliminate the need for insulin in people with type 1 diabetes. The article addresses many of our review criteria, including availability and novelty as well as describing absolute benefits seen in the experimental trial. The article does not adequately explain the strength of the evidence (e.g. was this a randomized clinical trial or something less robust? ), so readers are not given any guidance about the quality of the evidence. And there was no discussion of the costs of the procedure – in this experimental phase – or what it might cost if it became a treatment. The article also could have provided more context about harms, since serious complications, including death are possible. There was no discussion of how serious harms might be or how often they might occur. As an example of what can be left out in a shortened version, this line about potential harms appeared in the original LA  Times story, but was left out of the Boston Globe version we reviewed: ""Burt's research group at Northwestern has performed 170 stem-cell transplants to treat a variety of immune system disorders, and two patients have died from the treatment."""