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.

Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: The nation saw one of the worst flu outbreaks in nearly a decade during the 2017-2018 season, with more than 900,000 cases of hospitalizations and over 80,000 deaths, the CDC estimates here  Between Oct. 1, 2018 and Jan. 5, 2019, about 6 million to 7 million people were reported to have contracted the flu, according to data collected by the health agency. Health regulators have been trying to combat flu outbreaks in the United States and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the first new flu medication in nearly two decades last year. The CDC last month signaled the start of the flu season (click here), saying that 24 states and Guam were reporting widespread cases, with the H1N1 virus being the predominant strain. The dominant flu strain during the last season, H3N2, has been linked with severe disease and death, particularly among children and the elderly. The agency continues to recommend vaccination as the best way to reduce the risk of flu and advised people who are at high risk category to approach hospital for treatment with a flu antiviral drug. Claim: Up to 84,000 Americans hospitalized with flu in past three months: CDC.

Output: An estimated 69,000 to 84,000 Americans were hospitalized due to the flu in the last three months, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) said on Friday.


Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: Given that this is an illegal substance banned by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency, cost as a therapeutic would be difficult to ascertain. We liked that the story took pains to explain that approval of this drug faces many hurdles. This is a tough one. While the story tells us what percentage of patients benefited from treatment, it does not, in fact, quantify the extent of those benefits–which is precisely what this category is designed to assess. However, the story does do a good–and thorough–job of describing the benefits in qualitative terms. That said, if the story had only chosen one or two examples of changes in the standardized measures of depression or anxiety, this would have received an enthusiastic “Satisfactory” rating. One strong word of caution though: The story cites one source as saying that psilocybin may one day be used to treat a wide range of mental health issues ranging from drug addiction to obsessive-compulsive disorder. The story offers no evidence to support these claims, which were made by a source associated with an organization that exists specifically to promote research on hallucinogens. Substantial claims require substantial evidence. The story would have been much stronger if it had eliminated the unsubstantiated remarks from the source — particularly since they had no bearing on the subject of the story. The story addresses this issue thoroughly. Well done. The story does a good job of both describing the design of the studies and explaining why the study design is relevant. For example, the story notes: “But both [studies] were considered to be double-blind placebo trials — the gold-standard of medical research in which subjects are left to guess whether they have gotten the active study drug or an inactive lookalike.” This is the sort of thing we like to see. However, we did want to note that in the NYU study, researchers did state in the limitations section that there was “limited blinding” — how did that possibly affect the outcomes? No disease mongering here. However, the story should have been more cautious about claims of benefit for conditions ranging far beyond the scope of the research at hand, which focused on mental health problems among people with advanced cancer. The story clearly states who funded the studies, and what that organization’s long-term goals are. Further, the story clearly identified individuals quoted in the story who have ties to the studies or the funding organization. Lastly, the story incorporates input from an independent expert. However, the story would have been stronger if there had been a skeptical take on the research, which saw in some other coverage, such as this New York Times piece. The story does not address other treatment options for anxiety or depression, such as talk therapy or other pharmaceutical interventions. The story does a good job here. For example, the story notes: “[F]inding drugs like psilocybin effective is by no means the final hurdle to their widespread availability. None are currently in production, and no for-profit pharmaceutical company would likely invest millions of dollars to bring to market a pill intended effectively for one-time use.” Well done. This is a close call. The story does do a good job of placing the work in context in regard to overall research involving hallucinogens. That’s enough to earn it a “Satisfactory” rating. However, the story doesn’t mention any of the work done in the past 10 years on the use of psilocybin specifically to address anxiety in cancer patients, such as this 2007 study, this one from 2011, or this one from 2013. Are the results from the two new studies consistent with these earlier findings? Do they differ in a meaningful way? That would be good to know. The story does not appear to rely on a news release. Claim: Ingredient in magic mushrooms is shown to ease anxiety and depression in cancer patients in one dose

Output: The story focuses on two recent studies that find a single application of the hallucinogen psilocybin is effective at providing meaningful relief to cancer patients suffering from severe depression or anxiety. The studies were published in the Journal of Psychopharmacology, and can be found here and here. In some ways, the story is thorough, addressing potential side effects and conflicts of interest very well. The story discusses the potential benefits in depth, which is good, but fails to quantify those benefits — which is problematic. The story also does a good job of placing the work in context, highlighting the increasing profile of research into the use of hallucinogens as therapeutic tools for mental health problems. However, the story would have been even stronger if it had discussed the existing literature on the use of psilocybin to address anxiety in cancer patients. We also reviewed two news releases related to the research:   Depression and other mental health struggles are common and significant among people with cancer, especially terminal cancer. This makes it especially important for reporters to write responsibly about studies like those discussed in this story. You want to give readers enough information to help them make informed decisions. You don’t want to raise false hopes, or sensationalize the work. Overall, this story does a nice job of handling a delicate subject well.


Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: The Oxford University team’s experimental product, called “ChAdOx1 nCoV-19”, is a type known as a recombinant viral vector vaccine and is one of at least 70 potential COVID-19 candidate shots under development by biotech and research teams around the world. At least five of those are in preliminary testing in people. The Oxford scientists said on Friday they were recruiting volunteers for early stage - Phase 1 - human trials of their shot, and large-scale production capacity was being put in place “at risk”. This means the shots will be produced in large numbers at risk of being useless if trials show they do not work. “We have started at risk manufacturing of this vaccine not just on a smallish scale ... but with a network of manufacturers in as many as seven different places around the world,” Adrian Hill, a professor and director of the Jenner Institute at Oxford University, told reporters in an online briefing. “The aim is to have at least a million doses by around about September, when we also hope to have efficacy (trial) results.”  He said three of the manufacturing partners were in Britain, two in Europe, one in India and one in China. The scientists said initial manufacturing costs would be in “tens of millions” of pounds and acknowledged the investment risk of pressing ahead with production before verification. They did not give details of their financing. More than 2.14 million people have been reported to be infected by the novel coronavirus globally and 143,744 have died, according to a Reuters tally. Hill’s team said they plan to start safety and then mid-stage efficacy trials of their potential COVID-19 vaccine in adults aged between 18 and 55 within weeks. They then plan to expand the trial group to older age groups later, and hope to run a final phase trial with around 5,000 volunteers in the late summer. Hill and his co-researchers - including Sarah Gilbert, an Oxford professor of vaccinology - said they have “a high degree of confidence” that human trials of the ChAdOx1 shot will show positive results in protecting against COVID-19 infection. They acknowledged that many other research teams worldwide were also working on potential vaccines, with only a proportion likely to be fully successful. “We can never be certain these things are going to work,” Gilbert told the briefing. “My view is that I think this one has a very strong chance of working.”  Asked when the shot - if proven to work - might be able to be made widely available to the public, Hill said the best case scenario would be for regulators to grant it “emergency use approval” - something that could be achieved within six weeks beyond the point at which data show whether it is effective. That, he said, could mean around six weeks from September, when the team hopes to have positive trial data. Claim: UK scientists to make a million potential COVID-19 vaccines before proof.


Output: A million doses of a potential COVID-19 vaccine being developed by British scientists are already being manufactured and will be available by September, even before trials prove whether the shot is effective, the team said on Friday.