TASK DEFINITION: Given a paragraph and a claim, classify it this way: If the claim contradicts the evidence present in the paragraph, classify the claim as '0'. If the claim has multiple supporting *AND* contradicting evidences, classify the claim as '1'. If the claim has supporting evidence and the paragraph is in overall favor of the claim, then classify the claim as '2'.
PROBLEM: Paragraph: "A Facebook user declared, ""I’m starting a public movement called TAKE IT OFF,"" in attempting a six-point takedown of facial coverings and how effective they are in fighting COVID-19. The post features an image labeled ""Face Mask Safety — Know The Facts Before You Wear One."" The image makes this six-part claim about masks: ""Decreases oxygen intake; increases toxin inhalation; shuts down immune system; increases virus risk; scientifically inaccurate; effectiveness not studied."" The post was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat  news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) ""Well, that all sounds like a lot of dangerous nonsense,"" Texas A&M University-Texarkana virologist Ben Neuman told PolitiFact. As we’ve reported, facial coverings are not in themselves totally effective in fighting the coronavirus and there is a need for more study. But health officials largely agree that wearing any kind of face mask, coupled with social distancing and frequent hand-washing, is more protective than going unmasked. While the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention doesn’t recommend masks for children under age 2 or for people who are unconscious or have breathing conditions, it generally recommends wearing masks in public settings where other social distancing measures are difficult to maintain, such as grocery stores, pharmacies, and gas stations. As the CDC puts it: ""Your cloth face covering may protect them. Their cloth face covering may protect you."" Here’s a rundown on why each part of the post is wrong. ""Breathing through a mask decreases the amount of oxygen we need to live & be healthy, increases blood acidity & makes breathing difficult."" A mask does not reduce oxygen intake nor does it make blood more acidic, virologist Angela Rasmussen, a research scientist at Columbia University, told PolitiFact. Neuman said a mask ""will add some resistance to the breathing process, meaning it may feel like it takes a bit more work to take a breath, but it won't materially change the makeup of air that comes through the mask."" ""Toxins that we normally exhale as we breathe become trapped in the mask and re-inhaled into the lungs, increasing symptoms."" Repeated, long-term usage of the same unwashed mask could potentially lead to bacteria accumulating on the inside, which is why paper masks shouldn’t be reused and cloth masks should be laundered with soap between uses, Rasmussen said. ""However, there’s no reason to worry about ‘toxins,’’ she said. ""The only potentially toxic molecule that you routinely exhale is carbon dioxide, which is only toxic when it displaces oxygen,"" and it easily passes through the mask. Neuman also said carbon dioxide would not be trapped by a mask. ""Decreases oxygen intake, increases carbon dioxide & toxin intake putting body under stress, releasing cortisol & shutting down immune processes."" Not true. ""There’s no decreased oxygen or increased carbon dioxide from normal breathing while wearing a mask, and no evidence that masks have any effect on the immune system or immune function,"" Rasmussen said. Inhaling high levels of carbon dioxide is dangerous, but this is very unlikely to happen from wearing a cloth face mask — especially if you’re only wearing it for short periods of time, according to the Cleveland Clinic. There are studies that show that medical N95 respirators may result in increased carbon dioxide, which can lead to headaches and fatigue. This is one reason they're not recommended for home use,"" University of San Francisco research scientist Jeremy Howard told PolitiFact. ""Cloth masks, on the other hand, have excellent breathability and the same problems have not been demonstrated with them."" A USA Today fact-check said a similar claim, that masks weaken the immune system, was . ""Encourages triggering & infection from dormant retro viruses already in the body, taking advantage of a weakened immune system due to mask wearing."" Masks can be effective in preventing the spread of COVID-19 because COVID-19 spreads mainly from person to person through respiratory droplets produced when an infected person coughs, sneezes, or talks, according to the CDC. The droplets can land in the mouths or noses of people who are nearby or possibly be inhaled into the lungs. ""It’s absurd to think that masks would ‘trigger’ their activation and cause disease, especially since mask-wearing has no effect on immune system function,"" Rasmussen said. ""Virologists measure COVID-19 to be 80-140nm in size making the weave of material masks to be the equivalent of a chain-link fence to a mosquito."" (NM is a reference to the nanometer measure of diameter.) Rasmussen said virus particles are much smaller than the weave of masks, but infected people do not shed individual virus particles into the environment — they shed them in respiratory droplets. Masks prevent most, but not all, of these respiratory droplets from being dispersed into the environment. ""In addition, although we don’t know how many virus particles it takes to cause an infection, it’s almost certainly more than one. So you have to be exposed to enough respiratory droplets containing enough virus to establish an infection to actually become infected. Reducing droplet dispersal by wearing a mask greatly reduces this exposure risk, though it does not eliminate it completely,"" she said. Neuman said there is a growing number of research papers that demonstrate the effectiveness of surgical face masks in preventing transmission of a range of viruses, or demonstrate the effectiveness of face covering in limiting the novel coronavirus spread. ""Absolutely no peer-reviewed studies have been carried out of mask effectiveness within a social environment to control, prevent or eliminate the spread of disease."" Both papers cited by Neuman are published and peer reviewed. One was published in April by the journal Nature and the other on June 11 by the National Academy of Sciences. In terms of being ""within a social environment,"" 246 individuals provided exhaled breath samples in the first study, roughly half with masks and half without; the second study was a review of coronavirus mitigation efforts undertaken in Wuhan, China, Italy and New York City. Said Rasmussen: ""It’s true that to my knowledge masks have not been subjected to a large, randomized clinical trial, but a growing body of evidence does suggest that masks substantially reduce droplet spread."" A Facebook post claimed that wearing masks for the coronavirus ""decreases oxygen intake, increases toxin inhalation, shuts down immune system, increases virus risk, scientifically inaccurate, effectiveness not studied."" There is no evidence to back any of the six parts of the claim." Claim: Wearing masks for the coronavirus “decreases oxygen intake, increases toxin inhalation, shuts down immune system, increases virus risk, scientifically inaccurate, effectiveness not studied.”

SOLUTION: 0

PROBLEM: Paragraph: Officials discovered that there were 182 intravenous drug users who were affected in Lowell and Lawrence between 2015 and 2019, The Boston Globe reported. The number of cases dropped after the summer of 2018 after a campaign to increase access to treatment. There were six new cases diagnosed in Boston in December 2018 before a similar campaign was launched, and cases dropped down until fall of 2019. “We do seem to see a growing number of very, very vulnerable people with substance use disorder, with injection drug use, in great need for care,” said Dr. Jennifer K. Brody, director of HIV services at the Boston Health Care for the Homeless Program. The state has increased the number of needle exchanges from five in 2015 to 33, in an attempt to provide clean injection supplies and training, the paper reported. Infections among people who inject drugs declined 91% between 2000 and 2014. “What we’re seeing is the need for much more aggressive street outreach,” said Carl Sciortino, vice president of government relations for Fenway Health. Claim: Officials alert health care providers of HIV surge.

SOLUTION: 2

PROBLEM: Paragraph: Cost wasn’t mentioned, but given that this is light activity, we’ll rate this N//A. Still, the story could have explicitly said that the activities that are highlighted in this study probably have no cost associated with them. The story notes that engaging in light activity for 30 minutes per day reduced relative risk of mortality during the study period by 12 percent. It also noted that engaging in moderate activity for 30 minutes per day reduced that risk by 39 percent. But what about the absolute risk reduction? As the NIH has noted, the benefits of physical activity far outweigh the risks. For that reason, we won’t ding this story for not going into details regarding the risks associated with light physical activity. Nonetheless, it would have been nice to see the story mention that older adults may want to consult with a health professional to determine what types of activity they should (or should not) engage in. The story does briefly point out that this type of study can’t prove cause and effect, though it quickly pivoted to a “however…” to weaken that point. A limitation that should have made it into the news story is that individuals weren’t assigned a level of activity–rather they presumably went about their usual activities for a week (just a week) and the device captured it. The authors then categorized individuals into three categories of increasing level of activity. The challenge is that people who are less active, may be that way for a reason. Maybe they are sick, or have other issues that make them less active. And that might have been a temporary problem. This helps readers understand why the study can’t prove cause and effect. There’s really no disease mongering here, though there is one note we’d like to make that falls under this heading as well as anywhere. The story tells readers that increased physical activity is “linked to a lower risk of death.” Reader, we have bad news…death is inevitable. It would be more accurate to note that physical activity reduced the relative risk of dying during a given timeframe (in this case, the three-year period of observation). No outside sources are cited in the story, nor does the story make clear who funded the research (addressing potential conflicts of interest). The study compared different levels of physical activity. As such, it was comparative. However, there are other important lifestyle habits that affect mortality (cigarette smoking or drinking alcohol, for instance), and it would be interesting to know how helpful light activity is compared to these other lifestyle modifications. The story does a good job of defining what light activity means, which is important for understanding how accessible it is. Bike riding is a moderate activity, for example, whereas “strolling around the neighborhood” is a light activity. The story refers to national guidelines and some (nonspecific) “recent analyses,” noting that the “new study refutes that research.” But is this the first study to show benefits like these from engaging in low-intensity daily activities? No. For example, this 2014 study published in Preventive Medicine examined “examine[d] the association between household physical activity and all-cause mortality in a cohort of older adults from Spain.” The study relied on self-reporting from study participants, but found that — among other things — “Household physical activity may have benefits for longer survival in older women.” It would have been interesting to see the article look at how the new study compared to the 2014 study. Do the findings support each other? How do they differ? This sort of context would be valuable for readers. What does appear novel is the use of a device to assess activity–versus recording what people report as their activity levels. This is borderline. The story maps very closely to the news release. However, the story appears to incorporate quotes from study author Andrea LaCroix that are not found in the news release. Claim: Want to Live Longer? Every Movement Counts, Even Cleaning the House

SOLUTION:
0