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.

Paragraph: Health authorities across Asia have been stepping up surveillance and other precautions to prevent a repeat of the disruptions and deaths during the 2003 SARS crisis, which caused $40 billion to $50 billion in losses from reduced travel and spending. The first cases of what has been identified as a novel coronavirus were linked to a seafood market in Wuhan, suggesting animal-to-human transmission, but it now is also thought to be spread between people. As of Wednesday, more than 500 people were confirmed infected and 17 had died from the illness, which can cause pneumonia and other severe respiratory symptoms. A retreat in financial markets on Tuesday was followed by a rebound on Wednesday, as investors snapped up bargains. Share benchmarks were mostly higher both in Asia, Europe  and the U.S. While the new virus appears much less dangerous than SARS, “the most significant Asia risk could lie ahead as the regional peak travel season takes hold, which could multiply the disease diffusion,” said Stephen Innes, chief Asian strategist for AxiCorp. “So, while the risk is returning to the market, the lights might not turn green until we move through the Lunar New Year travel season to better gauge the coronavirus dispersion.” The 2003 outbreak of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome in China, along with cases of a deadly form of bird flu, resulted in widespread quarantine measures in many Chinese cities and in Hong Kong. More than 8,000 people fell sick and just under 800 people died, a mortality rate of under 10%. While the ordinary flu kills hundreds of thousands of people each year, such new diseases raise alarm due to the uncertainties over how deadly they might be and how they might spread. That’s especially true during the annual mass travel of the Lunar New Year festival, which begins this week. “The cost to the global economy can be quite staggering in negative GDP terms if this outbreak reaches epidemic proportions,” Innes said in a report. In China, health officials stepped up screening for fevers. “We ask the public to avoid crowds and minimize the public gatherings to reduce the possibility of cross infection,” Li Bin, deputy director of the National Health Commission, said Wednesday. As with SARS, the impact of the disease is likely to fall heaviest on specific industries, such as hotels and airlines, railways, casinos and other leisure businesses and retailers, analysts said. In a statement on its website Wednesday, Shanghai Disney Resort said it was operating normally but understood if some guests wished to change their travel plans. The park said it would let guests reschedule their visits or refund their money. China’s Civil Aviation Administration called on airlines to offer free refunds for tickets in or out of Wuhan. “If the pneumonia couldn’t be contained in the short term, we expect China’s retail sales, tourism, hotel & catering, travel activities likely to be hit, especially in the first and second quarters,” said Ning Zhang of UBS. Government efforts to offset the shock would help, but growth will likely rebound less than earlier forecast, Zhang said. The outbreak is a boon, meanwhile, for pharmaceutical companies and makers of protective masks and other medical gear. As of Jan. 17, the World Health Organization had not recommended any international restrictions on travel but urged local authorities to work with the travel industry to help prevent the disease from spreading while warning travelers who fall ill to seek medical attention. The illness is yet another blow for Hong Kong, whose economy is reeling from months of often violent anti-government protests. The wider concern is China, where the economy  grew at a 30-year low 6.1% annual pace in 2019. An interim trade pact between Beijing and Washington had raised hopes that some pressure from tensions between the two biggest economies might ease, and the latest data have showed signs of improved demand for exports. The virus outbreak raises the risk such optimism might be premature. “We expect increased downward pressure on China’s growth, particularly in the services sector,” said Ting Lu and other analysts at Nomura in Hong Kong, who based their projections on the spread of the SARS virus. The growing number of global travelers has contributed to the spread of various diseases in recent years, including Middle East respiratory syndrome, the Ebola and Zika viruses, the plague, measles and other highly contagious illnesses. The World Economic Forum estimates that pandemics — cross-border outbreaks like the flu that killed 50 million people a century ago — have the potential to cause an $570 billion in annual economic losses. The 2014-16 Ebola virus epidemic caused losses amounting to over $2.2 billion, according to the World Bank. That includes a 40% decrease in the number of working Liberians at the height of the crisis, lower exports and harvests, and costs for combating the disease. Apart from the human tragedy, such crises gobble up resources needed for other government spending, exacting a harsh toll on the poorest economies. In Africa, the loss of health care workers to Ebola resulted in thousands more deaths of mothers and babies, hindered work on other diseases such as preventing and treating malaria, HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis, reduced vaccination rates and fewer surgeries, the World Bank said in a report. Many survivors, meanwhile, suffer from lingering effects of the illnesses and the powerful drugs used to save their lives, becoming more vulnerable to hunger and other risks. At the same time, increasingly sophisticated tools for collecting data and analyzing are aiding efforts to prepare for and cope with severe disease outbreaks. In 2016, the World Bank set up a $500 million rapid response insurance fund, working with the WHO and insurance companies, to combat pandemics in developing countries. The fund uses “cat bonds,” or catastrophe bonds, whose principal will be lost if the funds are needed to help deal with an outbreak. Private insurers have followed with products of their own meant to hedge against risks from such disasters. Claim: China virus outbreak may wallop economy, financial markets.
News that a new virus that has afflicted hundreds of people in central China can spread between humans has rattled financial markets and raised concern it might wallop the economy just as it might be regaining momentum.

Paragraph: The lawsuit marks the first multi-plaintiff trial in the litigation over whether glyphosate, Roundup’s active ingredient, is carcinogenic, and is the first trial outside of California. It is being held in St. Louis, where Monsanto was headquartered before Bayer bought the company in a $63 billion deal in 2018. Three consecutive juries found the company liable for causing cancer with damages of tens of millions of dollars awarded to each plaintiff. Bayer is appealing those verdicts. Court-appointed mediator Ken Feinberg has put the number of Roundup cancer claimants at more than 75,000 while Bayer said the claims it has been served with in court were below 50,000. Bayer’s share price has tumbled since the first verdict in August 2018 but the stock rose 3% on Friday after Bloomberg reported a possible out-of-court settlement with some plaintiffs that could lead to a total payout of about $10 billion. While traders said the market likes the idea of Bayer settling the litigation, some cautioned that the prospect of a comprehensive deal remained uncertain. Analysts have estimated the size of any such settlement at $8-$12 billion. While most plaintiffs’ lawyers have agreed to postpone trials pending negotiations, some have decided to pursue their clients’ day in court. The case in Missouri’s Circuit Court for the 22nd Judicial Circuit of the City of St. Louis is scheduled to last several weeks, with both sides presenting extensive scientific evidence through expert witnesses. Bayer denies all allegations that Roundup or glyphosate causes cancer, saying decades of independent studies have shown the world’s most widely used weed killer to be safe for human use and noting that regulators around the world have approved the product. “At the end of the day, this trial should come down to the weight of the science, and we remain confident in the extensive scientific record and regulatory assessments that support the safety of our glyphosate-based herbicides and that they do not cause cancer,” the company said in a statement. Several court cases have been postponed by both parties in the past to expedite settlement talks. By pursuing the St. Louis trail The Miller Firm LLC, a key player in the litigation, is seeking to increase pressure on Bayer. The case involves the claims of Bryce Batiste from Louisiana, Ann Meeks from Florida, Glen Ashelman from Pennsylvania and Christopher Wade, a St. Louis resident. All four have been diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, a blood cell cancer that plaintiffs in the litigation allege is caused by Roundup. Some legal experts said Bayer could benefit from a home advantage in the St. Louis trial, where Monsanto has century-old roots. But juries in the city are also known to dole out massive damages awards against large corporations. Claim: Bayer faces fourth U.S. Roundup cancer trial in Monsanto's hometown.
Bayer AG is set to face a fourth U.S. jury trial over allegations that its Roundup weed killer causes cancer, with four cancer patients in the hometown of its agricultural subsidiary Monsanto scheduled to begin making their case on Friday.

Paragraph: "As the drug reported on is currently not available a precise cost may not yet be known. However – while not providing a precise cost of this treatment, the story indicated that it is likely to cost more than the currently approved and available clopidogrel especially in 2011 when it will be off patent. The story described the benefits of treatment with ticagrelor in terms of the absolute reduction in risk of the composite endpoint of heart attack, stroke, and death from cardiovascular disease as well as the relative risk reduction. The story mentioned the disadvantage that this medication required pills to be taken twice a day (as opposed to the once a day dosing with the currently available medications). It also mentioned that this drug had the potential for resulting in shortness of breath and also that the results of the medication wore off faster than the currently available medication. It could have provided readers with some explanation about why this has the potential to be a problem. Although it included a quote from a doctor indicating that this drug would likely become ""the new standard of care,"" the story did not adequately highlight the new side effects seen with this new treatment to help readers understand that it may not be an appropriate treatment option for all individuals with acute coronary syndrome. Lastly and perhaps most importantly –  the story included the statement ""There was no increase in the risk of dangerous bleeding associated with the new drug."" This statement is misleading as the study reported on found that outside of bleeding related to coronary-artery bypass grafting, ticagrelor was associated with higher rates of major bleeding (4.5% versus 3.8). Nonetheless, overall, the story meets the standard for discussing harms. The story included sufficient information for readers to appreciate that the study involved a large number of patients and it described the main comparison in absolute terms. It could have mentioned that this was a phase III clinical trial designed to examine both the drug’s safety and efficacy. It also could have discussed how the result of the current study differs from the previous large, phase III clinical trials that have been conducted. While mentioning that acute coronary syndrome results in the hospitalization of more than 1.3 million Americans per year, the story did not engage in overt disease mongering. There was only one clinician quoted with respect to the utility of the medication ticagrelor. The story should have included other perspectives. The story mentioned that there were other medications that prevent platelets from forming clumps, mentioning the two prescription medications, clopdogrel and pasugrel by name. The part of the story on the treatment of acute coronary syndrome using the drug ticagrelor ended with a clear sentence indicating that the company is hoping to have FDA approval for this drug by the end of the year and have it commercially available for consumers by early 2010. Placing it here means it could be missed by readers. Further what a company ‘hopes’ may not translate to the drug being available on the timetable outlined. However – a careful read of this story would results in correctly understanding that this drug is currently not FDA approved for sale. The story was about a new medication which is not yet available. does not appear to rely on a press release" Claim: Two new blood thinners better than Plavix and warfarin, studies say

This story reported on two studies published in the same issue of the New England Journal of Medicine. Both studies compared the effects of an anti-clotting medication on a currently available treatment, though the two studies involved different patient populations. The story never made clear whether there was a connection between the two studies reported; as the information provided on the two studies differed, this review focused on the first half of the story about the results of a phase III clinical trial involving the medication ticagrelor. The reporting on ticagrelor, a medication for use in patients with acute coronary syndrome that may be available in the future. There was discussion of how this drug differs from the currently available therapies and the story discussed, albeit incompletely, some of the reasons this drug may be preferable to those on the market as well as covering some issues that may arise from the use of this drug. The story would have been improved if it had included results from the other studies that have been conducted which had different results. Providing a more complete picture would better enable readers to understand the value in the new treatment.