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 Input:
Paragraph: More than 132,000 cases of the virus have been reported in 123 countries since it emerged in December in the central Chinese city of Wuhan, WHO director-general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus told a virtual news conference. “Europe has now become the epicenter of the pandemic with more reported cases and deaths than the rest of world combined apart from China,” he said in Geneva. Tedros announced that the WHO was launching a coronavirus Solidarity Response Fund. This would to allow people and organizations to contribute to help fund masks, gloves, gowns and goggles for heath workers, as well as diagnostic kits and investment in research and development, including for vaccines. Facebook will match up to $10 million in donations, while Alphabet Inc’s Google will donate $5 million, the WHO and UN Foundation later announced in a joint statement. Social distancing, where people avoid close proximity or touching, is a “tried and tested method” to slow the spread of a virus but “not a panacea” that will stop transmission, the WHO’s top emergency expert Dr. Mike Ryan said. Each country must decide on its own measures to protect its population, he said, adding: “But we’ve also consistently said that blanket travel measures in their own right will do nothing to protect an individual state.”  Detection and isolation of infected people, as well as tracing their contacts and wider testing, must be part of a comprehensive strategy, Ryan said. “As part of an overall comprehensive strategy, there is a place - particularly inside national borders - for potentially restricting movement between zones, as we’ve seen in certain places,” he said. “But there is rarely a justification for blanket bans, unless of course the context and the risk defines that.”  U.S. President Donald Trump has announced sweeping travel restrictions to prevent people from 26 European countries - except for Britain and Ireland - from traveling to the United States in a bid to limit the virus spread. A number of other countries in recent days have announced stepped up border checks, and canceled flights to other countries, in an effort to contain the spread. Trump on Friday declared a national emergency over the fast-spreading coronavirus, opening the door to providing what he said was about $50 billion in federal aid to fight the disease. Claim: Europe is epicenter of coronavirus pandemic: WHO.

Ex Output:
Europe has now become the epicenter of a coronavirus pandemic that has claimed 5,000 lives around the world, “a tragic milestone”, the World Health Organization said on Friday.


Ex Input:
Paragraph: More than 100 deer in Iowa County were euthanized last month after about 20 tested positive for the disease, The La Crosse Tribune reported . Veterinarians and animal health technicians from the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection and the U.S. Department of Agriculture-Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service sedated the animals before euthanizing them. The deer had been quarantined since October, when the DATCP confirmed a deer shot on a Waupaca County hunting ranch tested positive for the disease. The deer was traced back to the Iowa County farm. Nearly 80 deer in the county that were 16 months old or older were tested for the disease. Chronic wasting disease is a neurological disorder found in deer, elk and moose. It’s caused by an infectious protein that affects the animal’s brain. State and federal indemnity programs will compensate the deer farm, though an amount has yet to be determined. ___ Information from: La Crosse Tribune, http://www.lacrossetribune.com Claim: Officials: Wisconsin deer herd put down due to disease.

Ex Output:
An entire herd of whitetail deer on a farm in southwest Wisconsin has been euthanized because of chronic wasting disease, state agriculture officials said.


Ex Input:
Paragraph: This release doesn’t discuss costs in its comparison of influenza shots versus nasal sprays, although both modes of immunization have been around for a long while and the costs for both are easily known. While flu immunizations are often free through public health clinics and such, some people receive their immunizations from their family physicians and carry a specific cost. Knowing the difference in costs between the two types is useful information both for people and public health officials. The release reports similar rates of vaccine uptake for intranasal vaccine and standard flu shots. But it does not quantify benefits for the main outcome of the study, that is, rates of influenza in communities vaccinated with nasal vs injected vaccine over the course of the study. These rates were statistically no different: 5.2% for the standard vs 5.3% for the nasal vaccine. This release makes no mention of possible harms that my follow the use of either the influenza vaccine injections or nasal spray, even though there are well-known restrictions on whom should and should not receive the nasal spray, and potential negative reactions to the injections among some people. The release points out that the study was the “first blinded randomized controlled trial” done in children within largely closed communities and it found similar efficacy in using the two modes of immunization. However, we do wish the release had addressed limitations, as well as some of the complexity of making these results generalizable to a larger population, as we saw with NPR’s take on the news. While media attention is routinely heightened leading up to and during flu season, this release does not appear to reach the level of disease mongering. The release does identify the chief funder of the study, the Canadian Institutes for Health Research, although it offers no information on possible conflicts of interest among any of the researchers. The abstract of the study does state that two of the researchers do have links to pharmaceutical firms, but not in relation this study. Since the study looked a two forms of influenza vaccine administration, it obviously addresses the question of comparing alternatives. Both forms of immunization — shots and nasal spray — have been around for some time, their availability is widely known, earning the release a Satisfactory in this category. The release makes clear that the novelty of this study is its ability to examine both indirect effects of vaccination on the community as well as direct effects for persons receiving the vaccine. The release does not use any unjustifiable language. Claim: Flu nasal spray provides similar protection against influenza as flu shot: Study

Ex Output:

This McMaster University news release reports the results of a study looking at effectiveness of two different types of flu vaccine in a Canadian community. The release refrained from using sensational language to describe the study, and it clearly identifies who funded the research. However, it missed the mark when describing the effectiveness of the study. It focused on the wrong metric–the “uptake”– that is, how many people in each study group were vaccinated. Instead, we should have been informed of the main outcome of the study, which was the rates of influenza in communities vaccinated with nasal vs injected vaccine over the course of the study. (These rates were statistically no different: 5.2% for the standard vs 5.3% for the nasal vaccine.) An important aspect of this study is that previously, a CDC advisory committee had recommended against using the nasal sprays to vaccinate children for the 2016-2017 flu season. If that recommendation was incorrect, then using the spray as well as standard injections gives both individuals and public health officials more options in the control of a reoccurring disease. This study, if its results are borne out, offers valuable information for the public.