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: The Trump administration has called for 30 days of measures, including staying at least six feet away from other people, that have upended American life as most people stay isolated at home, shuttering schools and closing businesses through at least the end of April, with some states continuing certain closures through May and June. Dr. Anthony Fauci, the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said such steps must continue but that there are hopeful signs they are working. “If in fact we are successful, it makes sense to at least plan what a re-entry into normality would look like. That doesn’t mean we’re going to do it right now, but it means we need to be prepared to ease into that,” Fauci, a member of the White House coronavirus task force, told Fox News in an interview. Fauci and other public health experts have said the strict measures are needed to control the fast-spreading and potentially fatal disease that has already led to about 400,000 confirmed COVID-19 U.S. cases and nearly 13,000 deaths, even as the shutdowns have roiled the U.S. economy. Dr. Deborah Birx, another task force member, said isolation measures must continue for now or else the country could risk a repeated spike despite the allure of warmer spring weather. “What’s really important is that people don’t turn these early signs of hope into releasing from the 30 days to stop the spread. It’s really critical,” she told NBC News’ “Today” program. “If people start going out again and socially interacting, we could see a really acute second wave.”  Asked if 30-day distancing practices would be enough or that steps might have to continue longer, she said officials were looking at each area of the country differently as they weigh the data. “Clearly, there are metro areas that are struggling,” Birx said.

A: U.S. planning ways to 'ease' back to normal if virus efforts work: Fauci.
****
Q: They found several creams caused skin cancer in the specially bred mice, which had been pre-treated with ultraviolet radiation. The cancers are not melanoma, the deadliest kind of skin cancer, they stressed in their report in the Journal of Investigative Dermatology, but another type called squamous cell carcinoma. Such tumours are slow growing, highly treatable and only fatal if patients fail to have them removed. Allan Conney and colleagues at Rutgers University in New Jersey said they discovered the risk while testing a theory that caffeine could prevent skin cancer. “We sort of got into this by accident,” Conney said in a telephone interview. “We wanted a safe cream that we could put the caffeine into.”   They were testing specially bred albino mice, which are prone to develop skin cancer. The mice are pre-treated with ultraviolet radiation to simulate the effects of a human who has had heavy sun exposure in the past but then stopped — something that may be happening in the population as people realize the risks of getting a tan. Conney’s team decided to test the creams first and found that all four they tested caused tumours to grow on the mice. He said he does not know why, but suspects two ingredients — mineral oil and sodium laurel sulphate. “We’d like to understand the mechanism. What is most important is to see whether these moisturizing creams are tumorigenic in people,” Conney said. He said his lab is not equipped to do this but someone should. But he added, “I don’t think that people should be scared because this is a mouse study and we don’t know whether or not it applies to humans.”   Other experts were sceptical about the study. “This is a pretty artificial situation with the mouse skin primed by a lot of UV light to develop cancer,” Karol Sikora, Medical Director of Cancer Partners U.K. in Britain, said in a statement. Dr. Jonathan Rees, an expert in dermatology at the University of Edinburgh in Scotland, said squamous cell carcinoma was not a big health worry. “Non-melanoma skin cancer in man is very, very common and is almost 100 percent curable with an operation usually simpler than a tooth filling,” Rees said in a statement. Conney said the mouse was a commonly used model in skin cancer but said he agreed that it does not perfectly replicate human skin and human behaviour. He said his team approached Johnson & Johnson to create a cream without the suspect products and they developed one using other readily available ingredients. “They are things that are commonly used in many moisturizing creams,” he said. This cream did not cause the tumours in the mice, they said. He said Rutgers and Johnson & Johnson had patented the new cream jointly but did not know whether it would be commercially developed. A spokesman at the company was not immediately available for comment.

A: Skin creams seen to cause tumours on mice.
****
Q: The question of cost is cited in the final line of the story, which suggests that the scoring system can “address escalating health care cost issues.” But we didn’t think that was specific enough to warrant a Satisfactory score. The story doesn’t clue readers in to the fact that the financial burden can be measured in billions of dollars — a single screening test recommended for millions of Americans can cost thousands of dollars apiece. The other cost issue specific to this test is that it takes valuable time for providers to retrieve a reputable risk calculator when sitting with a patient and enter in the specific data points, including in this case waist circumference, which clinicians often do not measure as a ‘vital sign’ per se. The story cites a study that credits colonoscopy with reducing the risk of death from colon cancer by about 50 percent, by removing polyps. It would have been helpful for the story to explain what that relative reduction in risk means in absolute terms (e.g. did the rate of cancer death go from 50% to 25% or from 2% to around 1%?) The story also notes that the study found that patients with a low to intermediate risk score “still have a risk between of between 1.9 percent to 9.9 percent of harboring a polyp that can develop into cancer.” We’ll give credit here for the story’s provision of these key statistics, which do give a sense as how well the test accurately identifies truly low-risk individuals. However, we’d note that the benefit here should ideally refer to the ability of the algorithm to classify people at all risk levels (including high-risk), and therefore target the highest-risk patients for colonoscopy. The story doesn’t really get into discussion of the predictive power of the test, referred to as a likelihood ratio, which is in the study manuscript. However, this is a difficult concept for most health care providers and patients, and we think it’s understandable that the story did not include a full discussion of this topic. The harm of a screening test such as this really is “getting it wrong” in terms of predicting someone to be at low risk and finding them to have a higher risk polyp or malignancy. As noted above, the story cautions that “low- to intermediate-risk patients still have a risk between of between 1.9 percent to 9.9 percent of harboring a polyp that can develop into cancer.” This story accurately explains that the research was about predictive modeling, and explains the components of the risk score as well as the study design. There are some cautionary notes in the text, including a statement from outside expert that “the data from this study is not strong enough to spur any changes in current screening recommendations,” an opinion shared by an editorialist on the study. We think this is sufficient for a Satisfactory rating. The story does not hype the incidence or seriousness of the disease. The prevalence statistics cited are consistent with these National Cancer Institute figures. The story contains two independent voices. The perspective they provide is a particular strength of the article. We wish that more stories would reach out to experts not affiliated with the studies being reported on for context. The story notes that a variety of screening tests exist, but the relevant alternative here is actually other risk calculators, which the authors of the study describe and cite but are not routinely used. The story doesn’t mention these other calculators and why they are seldom used — context that would have deepened reader understanding of the issue. Although availability isn’t explicitly addressed, this risk calculator is now available (implicitly) by virtue of publication of the paper. It is a simple scoring system that can be implemented based on the information in the paper, and the story makes this clear. We’ll rate this Satisfactory. The story makes it sound as if this is a first-of-its-kind tool. However, risk calculation tools for colon cancer have been in circulation for many years. We could not find a news release related to this study. But in any case, the comments from two independent experts assure us that the story wasn’t based on a news release.

A:
'Scoring System' May Spot Those in Greatest Need of Colonoscopy; But one expert cautions that even 'low risk' patients can still develop suspicious polyps
****