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: The Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (KCDC) said there were 47 new infections as of midnight on Sunday compared with 81 recorded a day earlier, taking the national tally to 10,284. The death toll rose by eight to 191, while another 135 people have recovered from the virus for a total of 6,598. South Korea has been bringing the epidemic under control, with about 100 or fewer new daily cases for the past month, but this was the first time the daily tally of new cases was less than 50 since 909 were reported on Feb. 29. In February, South Korea uncovered what was believed to be the biggest outbreak outside of China. But a programme of mass testing and contact tracing helped contain the virus, which has spread far more quickly in other countries. The head of the World Health Organization (WHO), Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, held a 25-minute phone call with President Moon Jae-in, praising South Korea’s leadership in containing the virus, Moon’s presidential Blue House said. Moon said in the call that South Korea was “willing to actively support other countries with prevention skills and supplies as the circumstances permit”. Moon said he recently had phone calls with about 20 global leaders. Tedros proposed that Moon help support sub-Saharan African countries with virus-related supplies including test kits, the Blue House said. Despite the encouraging evidence in South Korea, officials have urged even greater vigilance, saying a large epidemic could re-emerge at any time, with smaller outbreaks appearing in churches, hospitals and nursing homes, as well as among travellers returning from abroad. “We are taking great caution against any optimistic expectations with this one-off figure,” Vice Health Minister Kim Gang-lip told a regular briefing. Click here for an interactive graphic tracking the global spread of coronavirus  On Saturday, the government extended its intensive social distancing campaign by two weeks, citing the sustained small clusters of infections. South Koreans had refrained from socialising in February when the number of cases rose exponentially but more people started going out recently as the weather became warmer and people became weary of the isolation, Kim said. The movement of people spiked about 20% over the weekend compared with the end of February, he said, citing data from the state-run statistics agency and SK Telecom, the country’s largest mobile operator. Starting on Sunday, the government toughened penalties for those who violate self-quarantine rules to up to 10 million won ($8,100) in fines or one year in prison from 3 million won  ($2,400) in fines. Authorities have reported several cases of quarantine rules being broken over the past few days. The Gunpo city government south of Seoul said on Sunday it has filed a complaint with police against a couple in their 50s and their children who broke away from isolation and went out even after testing positive for the virus. A Korean student living in the United States sparked public uproar after taking a fever remedy before flying home late last month. The student was found to have contracted the virus, putting some 20 other people who took the same flight in self quarantine. “We cannot maintain social distancing forever,” Kim said. “But it is the most effective measure to help protect others and yourself.” Claim: South Korea reports fewer than 50 new infections, earning WHO praise.
Example Output: South Korea reported fewer than 50 new coronavirus cases for the first time since its peak in late February, earning the praise of the World Health Organization for combatting the spread in one of the first countries to be hard-hit by the disease.

Example Input: Paragraph: In late May, North Korea reported an outbreak of African swine fever (ASF) to the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE), South Korea’s agriculture ministry said but the North has not made any official comment on its outbreak. North Korea’s Rodong Sinmun newspaper said on Wednesday nationwide preventive measures are being carried out to contain the virus, quoting North Korean leader Kim Jong Un as saying “prevention is the key to production in livestock industry”. “Increasing livestock production goes hand in hand with raising farm animals safe from various diseases,” said Kim according to the newspaper. “Once highly contagious diseases like African swine fever are spread .... herds of farm animals could die.”   Preventative measures include disinfecting farms and restricting sales of pork and processed meat, the newspaper said. North Korea raises mainly chicken, ducks and rabbits. Its pig population was 2.6 million as of 2017, according to data from Statistics Korea. In the wake of the North’s outbreak, South Korea has stepped up disinfection measures near the shared border to keep the viral disease spreading to the South. So far, no further cases have been reported in North Korea. African swine fever (ASF) is fatal and highly contagious to pigs and wild boards, but it does not affect humans. Since the first outbreak of ASF in East Asia was reported in China in early August last year, the virus has spread across China including Vietnam. Claim: North Korea steps up measures to prevent spread of African swine fever.
Example Output: North Korea has stepped up measures to prevent the spread of the highly contagious and deadly African swine fever, its main state newspaper said on Wednesday, breaking its silence on the outbreak which was first reported in late May.

Example Input: Paragraph: The story made no mention of costs, societal, personal, or otherwise. Benefits, or lack thereof in this case, were not quantified. Instead, the journalist reported that men who were alive were no more likely to be screened for prostate cancer than men who were deceased. But, the actual numbers of men alive and deceased were not provided nor the proportion who indicated they had been screened or not screened. The potential harms of screening are appropriately discussed, namely that screening could be wrong (false positive or false negative), could lead to further testing (biopsy), and that detection could lead to treatment which has serious side effects without knowing for sure whether the cancer would have harmed you in the first place. The observational study design is described to readers (e.g. that two groups were chosen during a particular time period and matched). IThe story also talks about limitations–that this is a small study and that this is not the final word on screening (presumably because study is observational and not a randomized clinical trial). The natural history of prostate cancer is appropriately reflected here — that is, that prostate cancer may not kill you or even cause problems because it is often slow-growing and that screening and early treatment may do more harm than good. It tells readers in the opening lines that there is an on-going debate about screening. The study co-author is quoted, but his relationship to the study is disclosed. Representatives from medical organizations that issue recommendations about prostate cancer screening were quoted as well, namely confirming the uncertainty of screening. A U.S. Preventive Services Task Force review from 2002 is also mentioned, further providing support for uncertainty of screening based on an objective review of the evidence. These sources also highlight that this uncertainty is not new. This story does provide information on the alternative to screening, in other words, not to be screened. Phrases such as “men should decide for themselves whether to get screened” and “for some men, detecting prostate cancer early can do more harm than good” appropriately develop the concept of not being screened compared to being screened. Disadvantages/advantages of screening and not screening are discussed (potential for downstream consequences, may not help men live longer, etc.). The story provides information on how long screening has been available. Likewise, it also states that these screening tests are performed millions of times each year in the U.S. The story states that results from study on prostate cancer screening are based on data from 24 through 129–the “early years of prostate cancer screening.” So, the story does tell us that prostate cancer screening is not new. Claim: Study Questions Prostate Cancer Screening
Example Output:
The uncertainty of prostate cancer screening with PSA blood tests and/or digital rectal exams to reduce prostate cancer deaths is not new, although this report describes the latest study to find no mortality benefit with screening. Overall, the story does a great job of discussing the real issues – that despite the popularity of prostate cancer screening (millions of tests in the US each year! ), the effectiveness of prostate cancer screening has not been established. The story includes a note on when we might know more based on the estimated date of completion of two large, ongoing screening trials (as opposed to observational studies like this one). One weakness of the story was that study results were not quantified; instead the findings were already interpreted for the readers who were not able to see the actual data figures.