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.
--------
Question: Paragraph: "The story does not discuss the costs of annual mammography screening, or even provide a range of costs. The story does not discuss any health care policy cost repercussions of breast cancer screening recommendations. The story does not discuss the cost of unnecessary biopsies or other treatments for women who have a false positive diagnosis via mammography (greater in women 40-49). The story highlights the 26 percent difference in breast cancer death rates, but fails to include any information about the overall risk. The researchers reported that based on their results you would have to screen 1252 women for a decade in order to prevent one breast cancer death. In other words, for the remaining 1251 women, a decade of mammograms did not alter their breast cancer mortality. Although this story does not go into detail about the potential harms of screening mammography, it does include comments from independent experts who point out that the scans do lead to the diagnosis and treatment of women whose tumors would never have become life-threatening. This story briefly explains key features of this study. It also includes critiques from independent experts who note limitations of the study design and analysis – although the statement that the researchers ""did not compare the broader breast cancer death rates"" in the counties"" is unclear. Overall, there is much more the Times could have done to analyze methodological questions surrounding the Swedish study. (For example, read our blog on this matter.) Interviews with Peter Gotzsche and with Donald Berry saved the story. But so much more could have been done – another reason why more than 471 words should have been devoted to the reporting. The story does not discuss the prevalence of breast cancer among women in their 40s. That omission would not usually be considered disease mongering, but since surveys indicate most people overestimate the risk of breast cancer among women in their 40s, failing to mention the actual rates leaves those misconceptions intact. The story does include comments from experts who raise concerns about overdiagnosis; that is, the number of breast tumors discovered that are not actually life-threatening. A strong point of this story is the inclusion of comments from several independent experts with a variety of perspectives on the meaning of the latest study results. The story does not mention any potential conflicts of interest, but the researchers did not list any in their journal article. Although not discussed in detail, the story does mention that the United States Preventive Services Task Force has questioned the value of screening mammograms for women younger than 50, thus implying that not being screened is an option to consider. The availability of mammography was not explicitly addressed, but we can’t criticize the story for that. Instead, we give a Not Applicable score for this criterion. This story could have done a better job explaining how this study – and its methods – are different from earlier research on the topic.But two things lead us to give it a barely satisfactory score. First, there was a brief attempt to mention the unique ""circumstances"" of the Swedish study. Second, the story also pointed out that there’s a historical ideological pattern in the study authors’ work – noting that they ""have long been advocates of mammography screening."" It’s clear that the story was not based on a news release." Claim: Mammogram Benefit Seen for Women in Their 40s

Answer: This story includes strong comments from independent experts that can help readers get a broader understanding of the results of a study that compared breast cancer death rates among women in their 40s who lived in areas of Sweden that did or did not offer routine mammography. However, because the story reports only the percentage difference in death rates, without including absolute numbers or the number of women who need to be screened to prevent one death, readers may get the impression that the effect of mammography was larger than what the researchers actually reported. People commonly overestimate the risk of breast cancer death among women in their 40s. By not including any information about the absolute numbers of deaths among women in this study or in the population at large, the story misses an opportunity to correct common misconceptions.


Question: Paragraph: The American Civil Liberties Union’s Rhode Island chapter announced Friday it filed a federal class action lawsuit with Disability Rights Rhode Island and the ACLU’s National Prison Project, alleging constitutional violations of the rights of prisoners with serious mental illness. The suit was filed on behalf of inmates. Corrections Department spokesman J.R. Ventura says they’ve trained staff on best practices and partnered across state agencies to guarantee high-quality mental health care. He says they “strongly dispute” the ACLU’s claims. The suit accuses the department of subjecting people with serious and persistent mental illness to prolonged solitary confinement, despite knowing the serious risk of harm these conditions pose. It seeks changes to how inmates are housed. Claim: Lawsuit filed over treatment of inmates with mental illness.

Answer: Civil liberties advocates are suing the Rhode Island prisons department over its treatment of inmates with mental illness.


Question: Paragraph: As the COVID-19 (aka Coronavirus disease) continued to spread in March 2020, social media users flashed back to a “pandemic” that unfolded nearly 20 years earlier — but this one took place entirely in the virtual world.According to the Hong Kong-based tech news site AbacusNews.com, more people on the Chinese platform Weibo have begun researching the Corrupted Blood online virus and players’ responses to the bug, which broke out inside the World of Warcraft game platform (known as WOW for short) in September 2005:A Weibo hashtag related to the World of Warcraft epidemic has become one of the most-searched terms, reaching nearly 60 million views. And one Weibo influencer spotted a similarity between their origins: The Wuhan coronavirus and Corrupted Blood both started in animals.“On the fundamental level, Corrupted Blood started with a hunter’s pet, namely an animal, before it transmitted to a person,” the Weibo user wrote.On Twitter, author Rin Chupeco garnered attention by highlighting the incident in a very popular thread and adding, “Epidemiologists actually STUDIED this to see how ppl would react to an epidemic [in real life].”The Warcraft outbreak was an unintended side-effect of an update to the game involving the character Hakkar the Soulflayer, introduced for players in the online multi-player game to take down to complete a raid. One of Hakkar’s attacks siphoned off players’ characters’ “blood,” weakening them to replenish his own strength. The game allowed for players to contaminate (or “corrupt”) their characters’ blood and thus poison Hakkar. But the tactic could also affect characters’ in-game pet.Engineers for the game told PC Magazine in 2019 that the problem originated from a mistake by the design team; if a character’s pet was in play at the time they poisoned Hakkar using that maneuver, the corrupted blood effect — and damage to not only the pet but any other character — would linger even after completing that part of the game.“Every time you’d summon that pet you’d reinfect yourself and all the players around you and it wouldn’t check if you were in a raid so you’d do it while you were in town and the entire town would get corrupted,” said Shane Dabiri, chief of staff for the game’s manufacturer Blizzard Entertainment. The effect was further spread by players who willfully “infected” their characters, and then deliberately took them to other virtual sites on the WOW platform.“Even once we figured out what was going on it made it really, really hard to fix it,” Cash said:Our choices were either to go through every pet in every server in every country in the entire world and check if it had corrupted blood and get rid of it, or get really hacky code in where every time you summoned a pet it would check and see if it had corrupted blood on it and get rid of it.At the time, an estimated 6.5 million players used the game platform. As Reuters would report in 2009, the corrupted blood outbreak, which lasted around a month, affected 4 million of them. But the situation also prompted researchers to take note.In a March 2007 article for the journal Epidemiology, physician Ran D. Balicer from the Ben-Gurion University of the Negev in Israel called the purposeful spread of corrupted blood by WOW players “the first virtual act of bio-warfare” and drew parallels between that outbreak online and the public spread of other diseases in the real world:The role of an asymptomatic-yet-infective animal reservoir, for instance, is evident in avian influenza. Asymptomatic ducks had an important role in allowing this otherwise relatively lethal avian disease to become endemic in East Asia and spread to other parts of the world. Furthermore, attempts by game administrators to quarantine infected areas proved futile due to the ability of characters to rapidly teleport to distant lands. This is similar to the role of air travel in the rapid global spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome (ie, SARS).That same year, in a paper for Lancet Infectious Diseases, Tufts University professor Nina Fefferman and co-author Eric Lofgren from the University of North Carolina argued that because WOW players can be so immersed in the game, that their reactions could be used as a gauge for how non-gamers could react in the event of a real-world outbreak:The modern world has two distinct types of pathogens, real and virtual. Real pathogens are, logically, those that infect real organisms, many of which subsequently cause disease and become subject to the attentions of the medical and public-health professions. The second type of pathogen, the virtual virus, infects computers through software. The outbreak we have described marks the first time that a virtual virus has infected a virtual human being in a manner even remotely resembling an actual epidemiological event. As technology and biology become more heavily integrated in daily life, this small step towards the interaction of virtual viruses and human beings could become highly significant.More than a decade later, those respective analyses continued to hold true; Eric Lofgren, who as of March 2020 was working as an infectious disease specialist at the Washington State University veterinary teaching hospital, told the Canadian Broadcast Company that implementing planned outbreaks within virtual settings could provide data for how to combat viral diseases outside of them.“In the real world, we can observe people’s behaviour, but we don’t know everything about the rest of the universe. We don’t know perfectly if you’re sick or not,” he said. “In a game, we can, at least in theory, know all of those things. They’re programmatic; you can record them.” Claim: "Players in the online ""World of Warcraft"" game were hit with an in-game virus, one that was later studied by researchers."

Answer:
Was ‘World of Warcraft’ Once Hit by a Virus That Was Subsequently Studied by Researchers?