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.

Example Input: Paragraph: "Fox Business host Lou Dobbs, a vocal supporter of President Donald Trump and his allies, challenged the president’s top health official recently on the administration’s handling of the 2019 coronavirus outbreak. Dobbs criticized Health and Human Secretary Alex Azar over a lack of transparency in the agency’s handling of COVID-19, which has infected nearly 91,000 people globally across 73 countries and led to more than nine American deaths. ""There’s a better ratio of testing for the coronavirus in other countries than we maintain here,"" Dobbs said during the March 2 interview on his TV show. ""We’re actually screening fewer people because we don’t have appropriate testing."" Azar countered that the Trump administration has taken recent steps to roll back regulations and increase the availability of diagnostic test kits to ""hundreds and thousands and millions."" The United States is set to significantly expand its testing capabilities in the coming days and weeks, but Dobbs is correct that the country has lagged behind other nations so far. ""It is true that diagnostic capacity in the U.S. has been lower than in some other countries, but that is changing,"" said Caitlin Rivers, an epidemiologist at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. It’s hard to pinpoint how many people have been tested for the coronavirus, both in the U.S. and around the world. The World Health Organization doesn’t track the number of tests administered in each country, and the numbers that are available are constantly updating. In a statement to PolitiFact, a Fox News spokesperson representing Dobbs cited data from the WorldOMeter, a real-time tool that ""shows estimated current numbers based on statistics and projections from the most reputable official organizations,"" according to its website. Using estimates derived from official government sources, the WorldOMeter says at least eight countries — South Korea, Italy, Austria, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, Finland, Vietnam and Turkey — have given more tests relative to the size of their populations than the United States. That lines up with experts’ analyses and with what multiple news outlets have reported. Marc Lipsitch, professor of epidemiology at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, said South Korea ""has screened at least thousands, and Guangdong, China, has screened at least hundreds of thousands,"" citing a WHO report on the outbreak in China, where the virus was first detected. South Korea ramped up testing by building drive-thru screening clinics for speedy assessments, according to local reports. Other countries, like Switzerland, the United Kingdom and Italy have also conducted thousands of diagnostic tests. ""We have done nothing like what other countries have done,"" Lipsitch said, noting that the U.S. had, until recently, limited not only the number of labs that were allowed to conduct tests on suspected cases, but also the number of patients that were eligible to be screened. It’s difficult to say just how far behind the U.S. has fallen, due to the murkiness around the number of administered tests. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention stopped releasing a public count of tests on March 2. The administration’s public statements haven’t cleared it up. On Feb. 29, the CDC reported testing 472 Americans. A day later, Azar told ABC News the U.S. had tested over 3,600 people. And a spokesperson for HHS, Azar’s agency, told us on March 3 that the CDC had tested samples from more than 1,200 patients. ""I don't know how to track U.S. tests any more,"" Lipsitch said. Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar speaks at the White House about the coronavirus on Feb. 28, 2020, in Washington. (AP/Vucci) The CDC stopped posting testing data as more state and local public-health labs have been brought into the fold, said Nancy Messonnier, a top CDC official, said during a March 3 briefing. ""With more and more testing done at states, these numbers would not be representative of the testing being done nationally,"" she said. An HHS spokesperson told us that the department doesn’t know how many additional tests have been administered by those state and local labs, adding that those labs can now test up to 15,000 people and are expected to be able to test as many as 75,000 people by March 6. The U.S. test count should rise into the millions as IDT, a commercial manufacturer, and other commercial and academic labs begin producing their own tests soon, according to HHS. The government’s initial testing effort was hindered by flaws with the CDC’s early test kits and restrictions that had limited which labs could run the tests and which patients could be tested. When the first U.S. coronavirus was detected, the country brushed aside the WHO test used by other nations and leaned on the CDC to develop and mass produce a more complicated test capable of detecting other viruses in addition to the coronavirus, according to reports. The test kits went out in early February. But some state labs that received them reported that flaws in the tests were triggering inconclusive results. Those states had to ship samples out to the CDC’s offices in Atlanta for results until the CDC fixed the problem weeks later. Since then, the Food and Drug Administration has given labs and hospitals across the country the go-ahead to administer their own tests before the FDA finishes reviewing them, so long as those tests are proven to work. That should lead to more testing, experts said. The CDC also modified its screening criteria to expand testing for some people with severe respiratory symptoms who did not travel to China or come into known contact with a coronavirus patient. Previously, travel to China or exposure to the virus were preconditions for screening. Adequate testing is essential to getting an accurate count of U.S. cases, experts said. Testing is also key for treating patients and identifying people who might be infected but don’t show symptoms, said Richard Watanabe, professor of preventive medicine at the University of Southern California. ""The latest data suggests the incubation period for COVID-19 can be as long as a couple of weeks,"" Watanabe said. Despite the recent acceleration, Lipsitch said U.S. testing is happening ""very slowly and at a level that is still paltry"" compared with some other countries. Dobbs said that the United States is ""actually screening fewer people (for the coronavirus than other countries) because we don’t have appropriate testing."" Experts told us that to date, the United States has lagged behind other countries, though numbers are imprecise. An error with the CDC’s early test kits contributed to the United States’ relatively low screening numbers. The administration has taken steps to make testing more widely available. With that additional information." Claim: The United States is “actually screening fewer people (for the coronavirus than other countries) because we don't have appropriate testing.
Example Output: The CDC has stopped publicly reporting the number of tests it’s administered. So far, the United States has lagged behind other nations in terms of coronavirus testing. It has recently taken steps to ramp up its testing capabilities. Until recently, the U.S. had insisted that only the CDC’s test could be used — despite flaws in some early kits — and that only certain patients could get tested.

Example Input: Paragraph: The bee, once widely found in the upper Midwest and Northeastern United States, was listed after U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration lifted a hold it had placed on a plan for federal protections proposed last fall by the administration of former President Barack Obama. Bumble bees are key pollinators of crops such as blueberries and cranberries, and are almost the only insect pollinator of tomatoes in the United States, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Conservation groups that had called for the new classification welcomed the move. “The listing helps mediate threats for this species and for all of those other animals out on the landscape that are suffering similar setbacks,” Rich Hatfield, senior biologist at the Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation, said by phone on Tuesday. The rusty patched bumble bee, or Bombus affinis, is one of 47 varieties of native bumble bees in the United States and Canada, more than a quarter of which face risk of extinction, according to the International Union for the Conservation of Nature. The population and range of the bee, named for the reddish blotch on its abdomen, have declined by more than 90 percent since the late 1990s due to disease, pesticides, climate change and habitat loss, according to wildlife officials. The agency in September proposed safeguarding the bee, but the listing was delayed by Trump’s White House as part of a broader freeze on rules issued by the prior administration. Environmental advocacy group the Natural Resources Defense Council sued last month, arguing that suspending the listing without public notice or comment violated the law. The NRDC said on Tuesday it was evaluating the next steps in its legal fight. Government scientists said the delay, part of a standard review, was not expected to affect the insect’s conservation, Interior Department spokeswoman Heather Swift said in a statement on Tuesday. The agency “will work with stakeholders to ensure collaborative conservation among landowners, farmers, industry, and developers in the areas where the species is native,” she added. Bumble bees pollinate wildflowers and about a third of U.S. crops, according to the Xerces Society. A recent study by the Center for Biological Diversity found that more than 700 of the 4,000 bee species native to North America and Hawaii may be inching toward extinction. Claim: First U.S. bumble bee added to endangered species list.
Example Output: The rusty patched bumble bee became the first wild bee in the continental United States to gain federal protection on Tuesday when it was added to the government’s list of endangered and threatened species.

Example Input: Paragraph: A quote from one of the study’s co-authors mentions “costs” and “patient preferences” as sensible considerations in first choice of antidepressant therapy, but the release offers no information about the comparative costs of the drugs that were studied or even the estimated average annual cost of such therapy. The release would have been strengthened by such data. The release states that “After two years, nonsmokers lost an average of 2.4 pounds on bupropion–compared with gaining an average of 4.6 pounds on fluoxetine (Prozac). So those who took bupropion ended up weighing 7 pounds less than did those on fluoxetine.” With the exception of a mention that some people can’t take buproprion (seizure disorder patients, for example), and the weight gain issue, the release makes no mention of the considerable side effects that accompany antidepressant use, or the often frustrating search patients and physicians must undertake to find an antidepressant that is both effective and tolerable for individual patients. Fatigue, insomnia, increased anxiety, headache and nausea are all fairly common when starting an antidepressant. The release does not make it clear that this is a retrospective study and not one set up to study the effect of antidepressants on weight gain or loss. The published study’s summary offered detailed information about the makeup of the study population and the strengths and weaknesses of the study’s data and analytic approach. Not much of that information was used in the release. To be helpful to readers, the release should have noted at least some of these limitations that were pointed out in the study: The release doesn’t engage in disease mongering. Nor does it give us any context about the prevalence of depression which might have been warranted here. That’s pretty well covered, with lots of information about Group Health and the grantors. In essence, the purpose of this study was to compare alternatives and report their effect on weight gain or loss. The news release notes that fluoxetine was chosen as the “reference” drug to compare with buproprion. The study suggests that in addition to fluoxetine, the researchers looked at data from patients assigned to a number of other drugs, too, but their data sets were incomplete. The release makes clear that all of the antidepressants are available and approved. The release claims that the study was the first to examine weight gain in people using antidepressants for more than a year, in this case up to two years. The release doesn’t rely on unjustifiable language. We would underscore the study author’s comment that “bupropion is the best initial choice of antidepressant for the vast majority of Americans who have depression and are overweight or obese” by adding that each individual needs to be evaluated for their symptoms with a medical professional making a recommendation on the appropriate drug therapy. Claim: One antidepressant shown to control weight during 2-year study
Example Output:
This news release describes results of a retrospective study by Group Health on the link between antidepressant drugs and weight change over a two-year period in adults with already-diagnosed depression. The results of the study suggest that compared to a “reference” drug, fluoxetine (best known as Prozac), an SSRI or selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, only bupropion (marketed as Wellbutrin), an NDRI (norepinephrine-dopamine reuptake inhibitor) was associated with modest long-term weight loss and only in non-smokers. The news release doesn’t give us any details on costs or side effects associated with the drugs nor does it tell us how the data was measured or analyzed. It also doesn’t include several limitations of the research included in the published study. [Editor’s note: Dr. Arterburn, the lead study investigator quoted in the news release, is a former reviewer and contributor to HealthNewsReview.org.] Depression takes a significant toll on human health, well-being and productivity. It’s a challenging condition to treat, costs billions every year worldwide, and suicide is a too-frequent outcome. Antidepressants are among the mostly commonly prescribed (and heavily marketed) drugs available, and a vast literature about their use suggests there is no particularly significant difference in their effectiveness. All carry some side effects as well. Because many SSRIs have long been linked to weight gain, for obese depressed patients, trying buproprion first might make good sense. Average monthly costs vary widely depending on the availability of generics and doses, and in most cases costs are comparable and covered by insurance, so “differentiators” such as weight issues are not insignificant.