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 government has tested around 83,000 people so far for COVID-19, the respiratory disease caused by the virus, Canada’s deputy chief public health officer Howard Njoo told reporters. There have been 1,099 confirmed cases. Canada has taken several measures to contain the fast-spreading virus, including closing its border with the United States, which came into effect on Friday night. Trudeau, who is himself in self-isolation after his wife tested positive for COVID-19, told reporters on Saturday the government is ramping up testing to detect as many cases as possible. “The ramping up of testing is increasing at a tremendous pace.... we are getting more equipment for testing. We recognize that broad scale testing is an essential tool in continuing to fight the spread of this disease,” Trudeau told reporters. There are around 5,000 ventilators across the country, Njoo said. He also said Canada is making efforts to bring home stranded citizens, and an Air Canada (AC.TO) plane is in the process of repatriating citizens from Morocco. He named Peru and Spain as two potential countries from which Canada was working with airlines to bring home stranded citizens. But Trudeau said the travel restriction put in place by many countries mean not every Canadian stuck overseas would be able to come home immediately. “We are going to ask people to stay safe, make smart choices and do the best they can in a situation that is unprecedented, exceptional and very difficult,” Trudeau said. Canada’s foreign minister François-Philippe Champagne estimated there are ten of thousands of Canadians overseas. Trudeau’s government has pledged C$27 billion ($18.6 billion) to help the economy amid the virus outbreak, which could blow out the fiscal deficit and lead to higher government borrowing by nearly 40%, according to Reuters calculations. “We have heard a wide range of estimates from economists and  banks about how bad it is going to get. The only thing they seem to agree on is, it is going to get very bad. Fortunately, Canada is in an extremely strong fiscal position... and that gives us room to inject money into people’s pocket,” Trudeau added. Meanwhile, Canada’s decision to turn back asylum seekers who walk over the U.S.-Canada border has been criticized by advocates. “The government’s decision... ignores the recommendations of the World Health Organization and isn’t part of a sound pandemic management plan,” said Nazila Bettache, with the Caring for Social Justice Collective. She said asylum seekers will cross by other means that are less controlled and will not have access to proper safety measures, such as a 14-day quarantine. Claim: Canada's coronavirus death toll rises to 13 as repatriation efforts step up.

Output: Canada’s death toll from the coronavirus rose to 13 on Saturday, and the country stepped up efforts to repatriate Canadians stranded overseas as Prime Minister Justin Trudeau called the situation “unprecedented, exceptional and very difficult.”


Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: The release does not mention cost. The FDA evaluates drugs without consideration of cost, so it’s understandable that they wouldn’t comment on it — and that’s why we’re rating this Not Applicable. But let’s be real here: The value of a new drug is a function not just of how well it works, but its cost-effectiveness. So we look forward to the day when any news release about a new drug — even one from the FDA — will include some mention of cost in its message. This release gives the preliminary results from a single study of 310 patients. Because the drug is experimental, long-term results haven’t been studied. Of the 310 patients enrolled in the lone trial upon which the approval is based, 14.8 percent showed some shrinkage of tumors during the assessment period lasting from 2.1 to about 13.8 months. For a subset of patients who were classified as having a positive response to PD-L1 expression, the response was 26 percent. As noted above, tumor shrinkage doesn’t always lead to improvements in survival or quality of life. It is a surrogate endpoint — a substitute — for the main outcome which is survival. Although this drug looks promising, to be fully transparent about its benefits as currently known, the release should have explained this. As noted in the “Summary,” another larger study is underway to assess the drug’s impact on extending life and improving quality of life. The release includes a description of side effects of this treatment. The most common ones included fatigue, decreased appetite, nausea, urinary tract infection, fever (pyrexia) and constipation. The release also mentions that patients taking the drug have an increased risk of infection and serious side effects that are “immune-mediated.” We would have liked a bit more context on what this term means for patients. The release outlines that this is the very first clinical trial of this compound for safety and efficacy, and under which regulatory paths the drug was assessed, including “breakthrough therapy designation, priority review status and accelerated approval.” We’re giving this release the benefit of the doubt and rating it Satisfactory for its bare bones description of the trial (and since we already addressed the lack of long-term survival data in the “Benefits” section.) As it stands, the results from the small trial were preliminary and short-term and did not reflect long-term survival. We would have liked to see a reference or link to the completed trial where one could look at the results to assess independently or learn more about the outcomes. We think the release should have provided more data on the patient demographics, the treatment regimen (dosing amount and schedule) as well as the range in tumor reduction. There is no disease mongering. This release describes the approval of a new drug by a regulatory agency, but we’d still like to know who sponsored the study that’s the basis for the approval. It’s not enough to state who markets the drug. The release does not give us very much information about alternatives. These patients had already received other therapy and their cancer had recurred, so it is implied that they had no other alternatives. But this isn’t stated very clearly. We can assume (and it seems evident) that the platinum-based therapy that the patients didn’t respond to initially is the usual treatment. The FDA’s approval of a drug clears the way for the drug sponsor to scale up production and begin marketing and selling the product. (The FDA doesn’t state this explicitly but it can be inferred.) A NYT article said the drug would be available in about two months. The release clearly states this product is first of its kind for this type of cancer. We found no unjustifiable language. Claim: FDA approves new, targeted treatment for bladder cancer

Output: The Food and Drug Administration approved a new immunotherapy drug that acts as a “checkpoint” inhibitor in patients whose bladder cancer (urothelial carcinoma) has not responded to other chemotherapy. The drug, atezolizumab (marketed as Tecentriq), showed effectiveness in about 14 percent of 310 patients in a very preliminary study. The release notes that the trial measured tumor shrinkage as the main outcome. It didn’t note, as a NYT article did, and important for this type of trial, that it is unknown whether the treatment makes a difference in survival. A larger study is being done to examine this. Whether it makes a difference in quality of life is also important and will presumably be examined in the larger trial. The National Cancer Institute (NCI) estimates 76,960 new cases of bladder cancer and 16,390 deaths from this disease in 2016. This approval of a new drug for treating bladder cancer is part of a wider area of research into immunotherapy, in which drugs target mechanisms of the human immune response. Patients with the PD-L1 protein highly expressed in their tumors appear to be responding best to the drug. This drug is an example of targeted chemotherapy which is becoming more important as treatments can be fine-tuned to the cancers of individual patients. In patients with intractable cancers, immunotherapy appears to offer some new hope while also bringing sobering questions about affordability and disparity of access by income. The drugs are typically very expensive — with some estimates putting the treatment cost for a single patient as high as $1 million. When the FDA gives a compound a “breakthrough” designation, some physicians and patients can misunderstand what that means. That’s a topic recently explored in this post.


Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: The arrest of Stacey Vaillancourt, 53, came after the final autopsy report on the body of Harper Briar, who was found unresponsive Jan. 24, determined the girl had high concentrations of diphenhydramine in her body, Vermont State Police said. The drug is the active sedating ingredient in over-the-counter antihistamines, police said. The autopsy report noted that diphenhydramine is not to be used on infants except if a doctor orders it. There was no such order for the infant, Vermont State Police said. “The state is alleging that the defendant sedated an otherwise beautiful, happy, healthy 6-month-old to the point where that baby could not lift her head and died,” said Rutland County State’s Attorney Rosemary Kennedy. “From the state’s perspective that is about as serious a charge that we see in Vermont.” Vaillancourt’s lawyer entered not guilty pleas as about 40 relatives and supporters of the baby’s family sat in the courtroom wearing pink “Justice for Harper Rose” T-shirts. According to a police affidavit, the infant was found unresponsive on the third day that Vaillancourt had been caring for her. Vaillancourt’s son told police that he and his fiance had become sick the night before and could not help her with the children that day, according to the affidavit. A phone message was left with Vaillancourt’s lawyer after hours seeking comment. Her lawyer Robert McClallen told the judge she has ties to the community, including family, owns a home with her mother, ran a daycare for 25 years, has a different job now and had recently undergone bankruptcy proceedings. The state had sought $50,000 bail and a condition that she not have contact with children under the age of 5. The judge set bail at $25,000 in the form of an unsecured appearance bond and the condition that she not have contact with children under the age of 5, except for her grandchild under the supervision of one of the child’s parents. __ This story has been corrected by removing reference to Vaillancourt’s lawyer not commenting. Claim: Ex-day care worker charged in death of 6-month-old.


Output: A former Vermont daycare provider was arrested Monday on suspicion of manslaughter and child cruelty charges in the death of a 6-month-old girl she was caring for in her Rutland home in January.