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: Swedish Thunberg said on Instagram she had now recovered from symptoms milder than her latest cold, and may not have suspected COVID-19 had it not been for her father, who had travelled with her, developing more severe symptoms. “Many (especially young people) might not notice any symptoms at all, or very mild symptoms. Then they don’t know they have the virus and can pass it on to people in risk groups,” she said. “We who don’t belong to a risk group have an enormous responsibility, our actions can be the difference between life and death for many others. Please keep that in mind, follow the advice from experts and your local authorities and #StayAtHome to slow the spread of the virus.”  The founder of the Fridays for Future youth movement said she had not been tested for the virus but given the combined symptoms and circumstances it was very likely she had it. She had self isolated because she had visited countries hit by coronavirus infection. Fridays for Future calls on politicians to listen to climate scientists and take urgent action to against global warming. Claim: Greta Thunberg says probably had COVID-19, urges #StayAtHome.
[EX A]: Teen climate activist Greta Thunberg said on Tuesday that while self-isolating after recent travels in Europe she probably came down with COVID-19, and urged other young people to stay at home too if even just a little unwell, to help stop the coronavirus.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: The ruling Communist Party’s Politburo said on Friday it would step up macroeconomic policy adjustments and pursue more proactive fiscal policy, state media reported. With the world’s second-biggest economy expected to shrink for the first time in four decades this quarter, China is set to unleash hundreds of billions of dollars in stimulus. The Politburo called for expanding the budget deficit, issuing more local and national bonds, guiding interest rates lower, delaying loan repayments, reducing supply-chain bottlenecks and boosting consumption. “We expect government ministries to roll out more tangible measures in the coming weeks as this Politburo meeting gave them no choice but to do more,” Goldman Sachs analysts said. The Politburo did not elaborate on plans for the central government to issue special treasury bonds, which would be the first such issuance since 2007. China should issue at least 2 trillion yuan ($282 billion) of such bonds to aid the economy, Morgan Stanley Chief China Economist Robin Xing said. Restrictions on foreigners entering the country went into effect on Saturday, as China reported no new locally transmitted infections and a small drop in so-called imported cases. Airlines have been ordered to sharply cut international flights from Sunday. Beijing has in recent days emphasized the risk posed by imported virus cases after widespread lockdowns within China helped to sharply reduce domestic transmissions. The Politburo said it would shift its focus to prevent more imported cases and a rebound in locally transmitted infections. “We must be extremely vigilant and cautious, and we must prevent the post-epidemic relaxation from coming too soon, leading to the loss of all our achievements,” the Communist Party’s official People’s Daily newspaper said in a front-page editorial. The authorities also reversed planned reopenings of movie theaters, the state-owned China Securities Journal reported, citing sources. With local transmission of the virus basically under control, China shifts focus toward rebooting paused businesses. China’s Ministry of Commerce said on Saturday nearly all of the country’s major supermarkets, convenience stores, shopping malls and farm produce retail markets have reopened, while all e-commerce platforms are operating. Meanwhile, 80% of restaurants and 60% of hotels are back in business, ministry official Wang Bin told a news conference. In a sign of businesses getting back to normal, wholesale prices of vegetables have dropped 16.5% from end-February, while pork prices have fallen 7.4% from a mid-February high. However, many street shops such as beauty salons are not yet open as “sentiment is reviving slowly, while people remain cautious about going out shopping”, Wang said. In China’s central Hubei Province, authorities had removed all highway checkpoints except those in its capital city Wuhan - the virus epicenter - and allowed traffic to leave the province as of Friday, the official Xinhua News Agency reported on Saturday. Hubei officials vowed to help businesses re-open and people get back to work. Gong Dingrong, mayor of Hubei’s Qianjiang, dubbed “lobster city”, said the government would promote sales across the country both online and offline, adding “there’s nothing to fear” eating lobsters from the city. China’s National Health Commission said on Saturday that 54 new coronavirus cases were reported on the mainland on Friday,  all imported cases. There were 55 new cases a day earlier, one of which was transmitted locally. The number of infections for mainland China stands at 81,394, with the death toll rising by three to 3,295, the commission said. Hubei province reported no new cases, and three new deaths. The province of 60 million, where the virus was first detected, has recorded 67,801 coronavirus cases and 3,177 deaths. Shanghai reported the highest number of new cases, with 17. An additional 11 cases were reported in Guangdong, six in Fujian, five in Tianjin, four in Zhejiang, three each in Beijing and Liaoning, two each in Inner Mongolia and Jilin, and one in Shandong. Chinese President Xi Jinping told U.S. President Donald Trump on Friday that China would support U.S. efforts to fight the coronavirus. The number of confirmed cases of coronavirus in the United States rose by at least 16,000 on Friday to nearly 102,000, the most of any country. George Gao, the director-general of the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, urged people to wear masks to control the virus’s spread overseas. Gao told the journal Science in an interview published on Friday that the “big mistake in the United States and Europe has been the failure to wear masks, which “can prevent droplets that carry the virus from escaping and infecting others”. Claim: China readies stimulus measures as local virus cases dwindle.
[EX A]: China plans stronger steps to revive an economy hit by coronavirus, as the nation on Saturday reported no new locally transmitted infections for the previous day.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: The story notes the cost of specific VR headsets (from $599 to $799) and says that users would also need to have a computer (costing approximately $999) to run the relevant software. Presumably, the games or other content for the VR systems would also cost money, which the story doesn’t address. The story also does not address whether any of these costs would be covered by insurance or government programs (at this point, probably not). Benefits aren’t quantified. The story mentions that, in some studies, “patients reported less discomfort.” The story also notes that one of these studies found that patients “actually experienced less pain.” However, it’s not clear how much less discomfort and pain. A little bit? A lot? Instead, the story relies heavily on anecdote; for example, citing two patients who found VR useful in addressing their pain. On a side note, the story also cites “proponents of virtual reality” as saying that VR “can be an effective treatment” for Alzheimer’s disease, arachnophobia and depression — then doesn’t expand on this or even mention any of those conditions again. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary support. Repeating claims from unnamed proponents about conditions that aren’t the subject of the story, and then not subjecting those claims to any critical analysis, does a disservice to readers. The story doesn’t address potential harms. The types of consumer-focused VR technology being discussed in this article are relatively new, and the field is undergoing rapid growth. As such, it can be difficult to determine what harms associated with VR use, much less what the extent of those harms might be. However, that doesn’t mean that nothing is known about potential risks associated with VR. One VR technology provider offers an overview of potential risks associated with its headset, and those risks range from dizziness and seizure for adults and children, to the potential for developmental problems related to balance, hand-eye coordination and multi-tasking in children. We don’t expect stories to list all of the potential harms associated with any given intervention, but we do expect there to be at least some acknowledgment that risks exist. The story refers to at least two completed studies, but tells readers virtually nothing about them. Have they been published or presented at conferences? How many patients participated? Did they use control groups? Not only does the story tell us very little about the studies, it doesn’t even give readers enough information to look the studies up themselves if they’d like more information (assuming the studies are even publicly available). Since the story is wide ranging in its definition of “pain” giving the reader additional resources would have been very useful. No disease mongering here. The story quotes multiple sources, and clearly identifies whether a source was associated with related research or (in one case) had financial ties to the VR industry. The story mentions a variety of other pain treatment options. The story would have been stronger if it had discussed if any comparative studies have been done. For example, it refers to pharmaceuticals, but primarily in order to point out that drug use can lead to drug tolerance and be addictive. Similarly, the story mentions that “hypnosis, yoga, and meditation decrease your perception of pain” — but only in a context that indicates VR may use a similar mechanism to also reduce pain. Could VR work as well as these treatment options? Could it work better? Could it be used in conjunction with other pain treatment approaches? Those are questions the story doesn’t address. Even acknowledging that there is uncertainty in this area is useful to readers curious about this intervention. The story discusses the availability of various VR technologies, but — more importantly — the story also stresses that much more research needs to be done on VR’s utility as a means of effectively treating pain. For example, the story says: “VR’s effectiveness still has to be proven, particularly when trying to combat chronic pain”; and “VR has a lot of promise, but it’s too early for it to be the standard of care”; and “There’s a lot more research needed before VR is going to be widely accepted as a pain relief method.” The story is, in essence, focused primarily on the novelty of using VR to treat pain — how it might work, why it may become increasingly popular as VR prices drop, and how much work still remains to be done. As a result, we’ll give it a Satisfactory rating. However, there are some things that could have been much more clear. For example, one of the researchers who is discussed in the story — Hunter Hoffman — has been publishing articles on VR’s use to address pain since at least 2000. And a search of Google Scholar turns up more than a dozen studies on the subject, including a review article that was published in 2009. In short, while much work certainly does need to be done, there’s more work out there than the story might lead readers to believe. The story would have been stronger if it had given readers some inkling of what researchers have already learned, based on the available literature. The story does not appear to be based on a news release. Claim: Hospitals Try Giving Patients a Dose of VR
[EX A]:
The story focuses on the potential use of virtual reality (VR) headsets as clinical tools for helping patients deal with pain by distracting them. The impetus for the story appears to be the fact that the field of VR technology is experiencing rapid growth, which is making VR equipment less expensive. While the story makes clear that a lot of research needs to be done on VR as a tool for addressing pain, it does mention multiple studies that have already been completed — but it doesn’t offer much information about what those studies found. It also could have shown more caution about the claims made. For example, the story cites unnamed “proponents of virtual reality” as saying that VR “can be an effective treatment” for Alzheimer’s disease, arachnophobia and depression, but that’s left unexplained. It also said “the price of a headset and software is tiny compared to the expense of keeping a patient in the hospital for an extra day.” However, there’s no indication that use of a VR headset will reduce extra hospital stays, so we’re not sure why those two things are being compared without at least some explanation that this is a purely hypothetical economic side-benefit. According to the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health, more than 25 million U.S. adults experience chronic, or daily, pain. And “nearly 40 million adults (17.6 percent) experience severe levels of pain.” Those are big numbers, and pain is a big problem. While there are quite a few treatments available, given the scope of the problem, any new advance in pain management is certainly newsworthy.