instruction:
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'.
question:
Paragraph: Many of China’s usually teeming cities have almost become ghost towns during the past two weeks as Communist Party rulers ordered virtual lockdowns, canceled flights, closed factories and shut schools. Even on Monday, a large number of workplaces and schools will remain closed and many white-collar employees will work from home. The scale of the potential hit to an economy that has been the engine of global growth in recent years has taken a toll on financial markets, as shares slumped and investors switched into safe-havens such as gold, bonds and the Japanese yen. China’s ambassador to Britain described the newly identified virus as “the enemy of mankind” in a BBC interview on Sunday, but added it “is controllable, is preventable, is curable”. “At this moment is very difficult to predict when we are going to have an inflection point,” Liu Xiaoming said. “We certainly hope it will come soon, but the isolation and quarantine measures have been very effective.”  China’s cabinet said it would coordinate with transport authorities to ensure the smooth return to work of employees in key industries such as food and medicines. The State Council’s special coronavirus group also said workers should return in “batches”, rather than all at once, in order to reduce infection risks. China’s National Health Commission recorded another 89 deaths on Saturday, pushing the total well above the 774 who died from SARS, or Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome in 2002/2003. GRAPHIC: Comparing new coronavirus to SARS and MERS - here  Total confirmed coronavirus cases in China stood at 37,198, commission data showed. New infections recorded the first drop below 3,000 cases Feb. 2, at 2,656 cases. Of those, 2,147 cases were in Hubei province, the epicenter of the outbreak. The virus has also spread to at least 27 countries and territories, according to a Reuters count based on official reports, infecting more than 330 people. Two deaths have been reported outside mainland China - both of Chinese nationals. The latest patients outside China include a group of British nationals staying in a mountain village in Haute-Savoie in the Alps, French health officials said, raising fears of further infections at a busy period in the ski season. A British man who contracted the virus while attending a conference in Singapore may have infected seven other people when he stopped off at a chalet in the French village on his way home, health experts said. Those infected include a British man diagnosed in Spain and a Briton found to have the disease in the UK, both of whom appeared to have been part of the chalet group. GRAPHIC: Tracking the novel coronavirus - here  As millions of Chinese prepared to go back to work, the public dismay and mistrust of official numbers was evident on Weibo, China’s equivalent of Twitter. “What’s even more frustrating is that these are only the ‘official’ data,” said one user. “We all know we can’t purchase masks anywhere, why are we still going back to work?” said a second. “More than 20,000 doctors and nurses around the country have been sent to Hubei, but why are the numbers still rising?” asked a third. Authorities had told businesses to tack up to 10 extra days on to holidays that had been due to finish at the end of January and some restrictions continued. Gaming giant Tencent Holdings said it had asked staff to continue working from home until Feb. 21. Hebei province, which surrounds Beijing, will keep schools shut until March 1, the People’s Daily newspaper said. Several provinces have shut schools until the end of February. The local government in the southern manufacturing hub of Shenzhen, meanwhile, denied a report in the Nikkei business daily that it had blocked a plan by Apple supplier Foxconn Technology Co to resume production in China from Monday. The company would restart once inspections were completed, it said. Among the latest deaths, 81 were in Hubei. An American hospitalized in the provincial capital Wuhan, where the outbreak began, became the first confirmed non-Chinese victim. Joseph Eisenberg, professor of epidemiology at the School of Public Health at the University of Michigan, said it was too early to say whether the epidemic was peaking. “Even if reported cases might be peaking, we don’t know what is happening with unreported cases,” he said. Major cities and capitals announced new travel restrictions as concern over the spread of the virus increased. Chinese-ruled Hong Kong introduced a two-week quarantine on Saturday for all people arriving from the mainland, or who have been there during the previous 14 days. Malaysia expanded its ban on visitors from China. France issued a new travel advisory for its citizens, saying it did not recommend traveling to China unless there was an “imperative” reason. Italy asked children traveling from China to stay away from school for two weeks voluntarily. Princess Cruises, operator of the Diamond Princess cruise ship quarantined off Japan, said a further six people had tested positive, bringing the total cases aboard to 70. (This story corrects to remove in paragraph 23 reference to 53-year-old geneticist who died, citing Washington Post, after newspaper said it incorrectly identified the name and age of a U.S. citizen who died.) Claim: 'Enemy of mankind': Coronavirus deaths top SARS as China returns to work.
answer:
2


question:
Paragraph: We won’t require a discussion of costs in this story because the use of zoledronic acid for early stage breast cancer is still up in the air. However, since the drug is already being sold for other indications, the story would have been better if it had told readers something about the costs of using the drug for approved indications. The story headline and lead muddled the main conclusion of the AZURE trial: that there was no survival benefit to adding zoledronic acid to standard therapy for women with early stage breast cancer. In contrast to the headline of this story saying that any benefit to younger women is “in question,” the other story we reviewed included a quote from the lead author of the study article saying that not only did younger patients get no benefit, “If anything, they are doing a little bit worse.” The story did accurately report that there may be some benefit to postmenopausal women, but the story should have been more cautious in presenting the results of the sub-group analysis. Overall, the thrust of the story didn’t appear to match the negative results that researchers reported. The article did  not mention any adverse effects associated with zoledronic acid. The story should have at least discussed the incidence of osteonecrosis of the jaw bone—a serious complication affecting more than one percent of study subjects. The article never mentioned that roughly one percent of women taking zoledronic acid in this trial developed a serious side effect: confirmed osteonecrosis of the jawbone. And another half a percent of subjects may have developed this bone-destroying problem. Women weighing the pros and cons of zoledronic acid for early breast cancer—or for other indications such as metastatic breast cancer—would certainly want to take this potentially devastating side-effect into account in their decision-making. And it deserved mention in the article. The article provided an adequate description of the randomized trial. In addition, it offered readers background on an earlier trial, highlighting some possible reasons that trial produced different results. However, it appeared to overstate the power of a subgroup analysis to produce conclusive results; in this case that the drug may extend the lives of women with established menopause. To produce strong take-home messages, the results of subgroup analyses have to be tested in further clinical trials. The story did offer a statement from an independent expert to this effect further down the page—but never explicitly stated that subgroup analyses have inherent limitations. There was no hint of disease mongering in this article. The article used an independent source. Howeever, it failed to tell readers about the support provided by the pharmaceutical company that markets this drug or about speaker fees paid to the lead researcher. The story did point out that the women in this trial did receive standard therapy, though it did not specifically say what that treatment entails. We will give the story a satisfactory rating since it is not clear that there is a proven alternative that would provide the type of recurrence and survival benefits seen in a previous study of zoledronic acid for early stage breast cancer. The article did not clarify the regulatory status of zoledronic acid. The FDA has approved zoledronic acid as a treatment for metastatic breast cancer but not for early stage breast cancer. The article made it clear that zoledronic acid is already being used in routine clinical care for other indications. The article did not appear to be overly reliant on a news release. Claim: Drug’s benefit to younger breast cancer patients in question
answer:
1


question:
Paragraph: The story does not mention the costs of screening or follow-up tests or treatment – to the individual or, collectively, to society. Those costs are significant. This story uses several different statistics and expert perspectives to explain what the researchers found in their examination of the effects of mammography screening. It not only include the relative risk reduction (10 percent) and an absolute risk reduction statistic (among women in their 50s, a decade of screening would boost the likelihood of avoiding a fatal breast cancer from 995.6 out of 1,000 to 996 out of 1,000), but it also offered comments from different experts about how they would personally value effects of that size. The story notes that screening mammography exposes women to false alarms scares as well as the risks and harms of treating tumors that actually would not have become life-threatening. This story explains how this study is different from earlier research on mammography. It points out both advantages of the study methods (comparing women in regions with screening to those without as Norway rolled out a national program over a 9 year period) and limitations (an observational study like this is not as powerful as a randomized trial, and the study might have found more benefits to screening if it had lasted longer). The story also noted the uncertainty in the numbers the researchers reported and that the real differences might be different. The story does not exaggerate the risk of breast cancer or the need to be screened for it. The story includes comments from several independent sources offering a variety of perspectives. It does not mention that the study was funded by the Cancer Registry of Norway and the Research Council of Norway. The story notes that improved treatments appear to have reduced the breast cancer death rate even among women who did not have regular screening mammograms. Not being screened was clearly acknowledged as an alternative, something not all competing stories explicitly addressed. The availability of mammography screening is not at issue. This story does point out that the women who were screened in Norway had access to special treatment teams. And it noted that these treatments are available at “many major medical centers in the United States.”  Mammography is not new, but this story does a good job of explaining what is new about the way these researchers examined the effects of screening. The story includes comments from several sources and does not appear to rely on a news release. Claim: Mammogramsâ€™ Value in Cancer Fight at Issue
answer:

2