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: Grown in-vitro from cattle stem cells at a cost of 250,000 euros ($332,000), the burger was cooked and eaten in front of television cameras to gain the greatest media coverage for the culmination of a five-year science experiment. Resembling a standard circular-shaped red meat patty, it was created by knitting together 20,000 strands of laboratory-grown protein, combined with other ingredients normally used in burgers, such as salt, breadcrumbs and egg powder. Red beet juice and saffron were added to give it colour. The two food tasters were reserved in their judgement, perhaps keen not to offend their host at the London event, noting the burger’s “absence of fat”. Pressed for a more detailed description of the flavour, food writer Josh Schonwald said the cultured beef had an “animal protein cake” like quality to it, adding that he would like to try it with some of the extras often served with traditional burgers - salt, pepper, ketchup and jalepenos. Even the scientist behind the burger’s creation, vascular biologist Mark Post of Maastricht University in the Netherlands, was relatively muted in his praise of its flavour. “It’s a very good start,” he told the hundreds of reporters who had gathered to watch the meat being cooked and served. The Dutch scientist’s aim was to show the world that in the future meat will not necessarily have to come from the environmentally and economically costly rearing and slaughtering of millions of animals. “Current meat production is at its maximum - we need to come up with an alternative,” he said. The World Health Organization (WHO) says meat production is projected to rise to 376 million tonnes by 2030 from 218 million tonnes annually in 1997-1999, and demand from a growing world population is expected to rise beyond that. According to a 2006 report by the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), industrialised agriculture contributes on a “massive scale” to climate change, air pollution, land degradation, energy use, deforestation and biodiversity decline. The meat industry contributes about 18 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, a proportion expected to grow as consumers in fast-developing countries such as China and India eat more meat, the report said. Chris Mason, a professor of regenerative medicine at University College London, who was not involved in the research, said it was “great pioneering science” with the potential to ease environmental, health and animal welfare problems. But, he added: “whilst the science looks achievable, the scalable manufacturing will require new game-changing innovation”. Post said he was confident his concept can be scaled up to offer a viable alternative to animal meat production, but said it may be another 20 years before lab-grown meat appears on supermarket shelves. He also conceded that the flavour of his meat must be improved if it is to become a popular choice. Post resisted requests from journalists from all over the world eager to try a morsel of the world’s first cultured beef burger, saying there was not enough to go around. Instead, he said, his children would be offered the leftovers. ($1 = 0.7528 euros) Claim: First taste of test-tube burger declared 'close to meat'.

Output: The world’s first laboratory-grown beef burger was flipped out of a petri dish and into a frying pan on Monday, with food tasters declaring it tasted “close to meat”.


Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: "As schools across the country open for the uncertain, unprecedented school year to come, opinions are split on how to do so safely. Some districts have opted for completely virtual learning. Others will try a mix of both online and in-person classes, or will send younger children to school while older kids stay home, or will phase students back to the classroom gradually. Others still are calling for schools to reopen completely for those who feel well enough to teach and attend, and who aren’t especially vulnerable to COVID-19. One such voice is U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wisconsin, who in an Aug. 13, 2020 radio interview with Milwaukee talk show host Steve Scaffidi on WTMJ-AM discussed why he believes students need to return to school in person this fall. For younger people, Johnson asserted, ""seasonal flu is actually, in many cases, a deadlier virus if they contract that."" Is Johnson correct that COVID-19 is less deadly for children than the flu? Let’s dig in. COVID was less harsh on kids than the flu, this year’s stats show To back up his claim, Johnson’s office sent statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on flu and COVID-19 deaths among Americans under age 18. During the 2018-19 flu season, the CDC reported approximately 480 flu deaths among children ages 0-17, about 30% of whom had a lab-confirmed case of influenza. Comparably, 90 American youth have died from coronavirus complications from the beginning of the pandemic through mid-August, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics. More than 46,000 children were hospitalized for flu in that 2018-19 period. The hospitalization rate among children 5 to 17 was 39.2 children per 100,000 children. For COVID-19, that hospitalization rate is 6 per 100,000 children ages 5 to 17, the CDC says. In a report detailing the differences between COVID-19 and the flu, the CDC states that ""the risk of complications for healthy children is higher for flu compared to COVID-19."" And data from Wisconsin echoes that sentiment. Since the pandemic began, no children have died from COVID-19 complications, according to state Department of Health Services death data, and 147 people ages 0-19 have been hospitalized. In contrast, three pediatric flu deaths occurred during this year’s flu season, DHS data show, and 605 kids ages 17 and under have been hospitalized. The data show there have been fewer childhood deaths from COVID-19 so far this year than from the seasonal flu. The hold-up, of course, lies in nuance, said Dr. Jon Temte, associate dean for public health and community engagement within UW-Madison’s School of Medicine and Public Health. ""U.S. schools have been out (and) mostly closed since March, thus extremely limiting cases of SARS-CoV-2 in children. Conversely, we rarely close schools for influenza, thus allowing an attack rate of 30-40% in school-aged children,"" Temte wrote in an Aug. 27, 2020 email to PolitiFact Wisconsin. That is, the flu has been able to spread through children more commonly than COVID-19, creating more cases, more complications and more deaths. Other experts agree. Dr. Chad Vercio, chair of pediatrics at Riverside University Health System in California, said children’s risk from the coronavirus depends on how widespread the virus is in any given area, and that ""it is unknown"" if COVID hospitalization rates would rise once schools reopen. And though the early data suggests that COVID-19 is not as bad for children as the flu, it’s just that: Early. Dr. Vidya Mony, an infectious disease expert with Santa Clara Valley Medical Center in San Jose, Calif., said there isn’t enough data yet to say indisputably that COVID risks are lower for kids. Johnson claimed that in many cases, the seasonal flu was a deadlier virus for youth than COVID-19. The numbers show that this year, that was the case. More children died from flu complications than from COVID-19, and were hospitalized at higher rates for the flu. But experts caution that we don’t have enough data to paint the full picture so early in the game, and that schools shutting down in early spring may have driven down coronavirus case rates in children — meaning we can’t be sure exactly how the virus will move through young people when more of them are potentially getting exposed. Our definition for  is ""the statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information."" That fits here." Claim: For younger people, seasonal flu is “in many cases” a deadlier virus than COVID-19

Output: Hospitalizations and deaths among children are higher for the seasonal flu than they are for COVID-19   The CDC states that the risk of complications for healthy children is higher for flu compared to COVID-19, though kids with underlying medical conditions will be at greater risk for both    But experts caution that we might not yet see the whole picture of how dangerous the coronavirus is for kids because schools largely shut down when it started to spread, shielding them from that potential place of exposure.


Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: In the days before U.S. President Donald Trump’s visit to a Ford manufacturer in Michigan on May 21, 2020, the company informed the White House that face masks would be required for all visitors. This request proved somewhat controversial, however, as Trump had thus far refused to wear a mask in public during the COVID-19 coronavirus disease pandemic, despite recommendations from health officials. The majority of videos and photographs from the visit showed Trump touring the facility, delivering a speech, and speaking with Ford executives — all without a face covering. So when a photograph emerged supposedly showing Trump wearing a face mask during this visit, some viewers were surprised and skeptical of the sight: Trump does NOT want you to share this picture of him wearing a mask… pic.twitter.com/vCO06D0Ud6 Claim: A photograph shows U.S. President Donald Trump wearing a protective face mask during a visit to a Ford manufacturing plant in spring 2020.


Output: — William LeGate (@williamlegate) May 22, 2020