Given a paragraph, generate a claim that is supported by the given paragraph. 1) The claim must contain information from within the paragraph. 2) A sentence within the paragraph can be used as a claim. 3) The claim should not have contradictions within the paragraph. 4) The claim should be at most one sentence long.

[Q]: “This pandemic is not only a public health crisis, it is also fueling an economic crisis the likes of which we have not seen since the Great Depression,” Hancock said at a news conference. Denver has seen steep declines in sales, lodging and other taxes since the pandemic hit Colorado two months ago, and the state is still under a safer-at-home order that has placed restrictions on businesses. City leaders say the drop in tax revenue is affecting the fund that pays for police and fire services, as well as street maintenance. American cities, from Puyallup, Washington, to Miramar, Florida, have also furloughed employees to save money in the face of dire economic forecasts. In April, Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti released a spending plan he called “a document of our pain” that includes service cuts and furloughs for nearly 16,000 workers. Under the proposal, city employees would take 26 furlough days, the equivalent of a 10% pay cut, in the coming year. The spending reductions in Los Angeles are likely to be a sign of what’s to come at city halls across the nation, as jobless lines grow and local treasuries see steep drops in tax revenue. Denver’s planned furloughs, which do not apply to uniformed employees like firefighters, police officers and sheriff’s deputies, will save the city about $16 million. The city also is reducing travel, hiring and purchases, and it is asking departments to cut 7.5% from their budgets. About 3,000 of Denver’s 12,000 employees are uniformed workers. “I want everyone to know that we have worked to exhaust every other tool we had before taking this step,” said Hancock, who repeated his call for lawmakers to include cities in the next federal stimulus package. “The reality is this: If cities can’t recover, there will be no national recovery,” he said. Brendan Hanlon, the city’s chief financial officer, said he thought the fallout from the 2008-2009 Great Recession was astonishing, but the current crisis will be harder to address. “I could have never imagined seeing the numbers that we’re seeing right now and the gravity that it means to the services that we provide to the public every day here in Denver,” he said. The city last instituted furloughs in 2011. A survey by the National League of Cities found nearly universal agreement that cities would be hit hard by revenue shortfalls caused by the coronavirus outbreak, and in many cases furloughs and layoffs would be used to close budget gaps.
[A]: Denver to furlough thousands of workers amid coronavirus.


[Q]: The verdict in the lawsuit brought by the California woman, Eva Echeverria, marks the largest sum awarded in a series of talcum powder lawsuit verdicts against Johnson & Johnson in courts around the U.S. Echeverria alleged Johnson & Johnson failed to adequately warn consumers about talcum powder’s potential cancer risks. She used the company’s baby powder on a daily basis beginning in the 1950s until 2016 and was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2007, according to court papers. Echeverria developed ovarian cancer as a “proximate result of the unreasonably dangerous and defective nature of talcum powder,” she said in her lawsuit. Echeverria’s attorney, Mark Robinson, said his client is undergoing cancer treatment while hospitalized and told him she hoped the verdict would lead Johnson & Johnson to put additional warnings on its products. “Mrs. Echeverria is dying from this ovarian cancer and she said to me all she wanted to do was to help the other women throughout the whole country who have ovarian cancer for using Johnson & Johnson for 20 and 30 years,” Robinson said. “She really didn’t want sympathy,” he added. “She just wanted to get a message out to help these other women.” The jury’s award included $68 million in compensatory damages and $340 million in punitive damages, Robinson said. The evidence in the case included internal documents from several decades that “showed the jury that Johnson & Johnson knew about the risks of talc and ovarian cancer,” Robinson said. “Johnson & Johnson had many warning bells over a 30 year period but failed to warn the women who were buying its product,” he said. Johnson & Johnson spokeswoman Carol Goodrich said in a statement that the company will appeal the jury’s decision. She says while the company sympathizes with women suffering from ovarian cancer that scientific evidence supports the safety of Johnson’s baby powder. The verdict came after a St. Louis, Missouri jury in May awarded $110.5 million to a Virginia woman who was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2012. She had blamed her illness on her use of the company’s talcum powder-containing products for more than 40 years. Besides that case, three other trials in St. Louis had similar outcomes last year — with juries awarding damages of $72 million, $70.1 million and $55 million, for a combined total of $307.6 million. Another St. Louis jury in March rejected the claims of a Tennessee woman with ovarian and uterine cancer who blamed talcum powder for her cancers. Two similar cases in New Jersey were thrown out by a judge who said the plaintiffs’ lawyers did not presented reliable evidence linking talc to ovarian cancer. More than 1,000 other people have filed similar lawsuits. Some who won their lawsuits won much lower amounts, illustrating how juries have wide latitude in awarding monetary damages. Johnson & Johnson is preparing to defend itself and its baby powder at upcoming trials in the U.S., Goodrich said. ___ Associated Press writer Amanda Lee Myers contributed to this report. ___ Follow Michael Balsamo on Twitter at http://twitter.com/MikeBalsamo1 .
[A]: Record $417M award in lawsuit linking baby powder to cancer.


[Q]: At the end of 2016, images (often unaccompanied by any explanatory news story) began circulating online suggesting that California’s iconic “Hollywood” sign had been altered to read “Hollyweed” (presumably as an homage to the state’s recent passage of Proposition 64, which legalized recreational use of marijuana beginning in 2018). Owing to the number of humorous digitally created images to be found on the Internet at any given time, a skeptical social media public was unsure if the “Hollyweed” picture was one of the funny-but-not-real photographs going viral on any given day. But it was true that the sign was briefly altered to read “Hollyweed” on the night of 31 December 2016, an event that was extensively covered by local news outlets: Authorities say someone managed to modify the famed Hollywood sign to read “Hollyweed” in an overnight act of trespass. Sgt. Guy Juneau with the Los Angeles Police Department’s Security Services said the incident unfolded around midnight after a thrill-seeker climbed the mountain and threw two tarps over the “O’s” to make them appear like “E’s.” It was caught on city surveillance cameras. The Perrot family visiting from Australia said they noticed the sign from their hotel. At the time, it read “Hollywoed,” while city park rangers were switching it back. “We looked out this morning, and the Hollywood, the double O, there was actually only one E left,” Lia Perrot said. The sign was restored to “Hollywood” by 10:45 a.m. [the following morning]. It remains unclear who was involved in the incident, which was being investigated as a misdemeanor charge of trespassing, according to Los Angeles police. According to Los Angeles television station KCAL, the prank wasn’t the first time the sign had been altered (nor the first incidence of its being changed to “Hollyweed”): Back on Jan. 1, 1976, a man named Danny Finegood altered the sign to read “Hollyweed,” the same day a marijuana law took effect, according to published reports. In November [2016], California voters approved Proposition 64, which legalized the recreational use of marijuana. It was one of several times Finegood altered the sign. In 1979, to mark Easter, he changed it to read “Holywood.” In the 1980s, during the Iran-Contra hearings, he changed it to “Ollywood” to mock Lt. Col. Oliver North. Images of the prank were rife on social networks: Hollyweed!!! I think security took the night off last night in Hollywood?. pic.twitter.com/ycQXzjsyjG — Sd3gaughC (@Sd3gaughC) January 1, 2017   The Hollywood sign right now pic.twitter.com/wHNRir6KHL — Vsauce (@tweetsauce) January 1, 2017   What the fuck. #hollyweed pic.twitter.com/KzNYeEib3A — Adam Singer (@singy) January 1, 2017 Likewise, documentation of the sign’s restoration was reported contemporaneously:   UPDATE: Crews have restored the Hollywood sign, which was altered overnight to read “Hollyweed.” #LIVE @ https://t.co/w3oJ4nTd1g pic.twitter.com/yKiufGQhku — CBS Los Angeles (@CBSLA) January 1, 2017
[A]:
"Pranksters briefly changed California's iconic ""Hollywood"" sign to read ""Hollyweed."