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'.

Ex Input:
Paragraph: "President Donald Trump took a swipe at former President Barack Obama as he renewed his pledge to tackle the opioid epidemic, which claims the lives of tens of thousands of people a year. Trump said that opioid overdose deaths have nearly quadrupled since 1999, speaking after a briefing on the issue. But while deaths soared, Trump said overall drug prosecutions declined in recent years -- a trend Trump vowed to reverse. ""We're going to be bringing them up and bringing them up rapidly,"" he said Aug. 8. ""At the end of 2016, there were 23 percent fewer than in 2011. So they looked at this scourge, and they let it go by, and we're not letting it go by."" We found that Trump is correct that federal drug prosecutions declined from 2011 to 2016 under Obama, but he lacks evidence to prove that’s the culprit for the opioid overdose crisis. A White House spokesman declined to comment on the record. The Justice Department filed drug charges against 24,638 defendants in 2016, down 23 percent from 2011, according to the Pew Research Center, which analyzed federal data. The data reflects felonies and some serious misdemeanors. But that’s overall drug prosecutions, not just prosecutions related to opioids. And it only includes federal prosecutions -- the vast majority of criminal prosecutions are in state courts. We found that the drop was due to some of the specific actions the Obama administration took to stop the prosecution of low-level offenders. Pew noted that in 2013, then-Attorney General Eric Holder directed federal prosecutors to ensure that each case they brought served ""a substantial federal interest."" Holder mandated that certain low-level nonviolent drug offenders, with no ties to gangs or cartels, would no longer face mandatory minimum sentences. He called for more treatment and alternatives to prison. Also in 2013, U.S. Deputy Attorney General James Cole issued a memorandum to federal attorneys related to prioritizing marijuana prosecutions. He directed attorneys to focus on cartels or other criminal organizations and the use of violence to distribute the drug. Federal marijuana prosecutions fell to 5,158 in 2016, down 39 percent from five years earlier, Pew found. Trump implied that lack of prosecutions likely led to a worsening of the opioid crisis. But experts we contacted had a different view. ""No serious analyst would argue that federal prosecutions have consequences for opioid overdoses,"" said University of Maryland criminology professor Peter Reuter. ""The drivers of that increase are the arrival of fentanyl, since about 2012, and the overprescription of opioids before it. There has been some decline in heroin retail prices. But no prior effort against high-level distributors and traffickers has ever had sustained success at the retail level."" Some drug experts including Dr. Andrew Kolodny, co-director of opioid policy research at Brandeis University's Heller School for Social Policy and Management, have criticized Obama for taking too long to address the crisis, but not because of a lack of prosecutions. ""Obama deserves blame for neglecting the epidemic and failing to ensure a coordinated federal response,"" Kolodny said. ""I can think of several areas where it's fair to criticize him. The decline in federal drug prosecutions is not one of them."" Trump has a point that the Obama administration was slow to respond to the opioid crisis, said Jon Caulkins, a Carnegie Mellon professor and expert on drug policy. ""Anyone looking at the basic death stats knew we had a problem by 2000,"" Caulkins said. ""So this is a national disgrace, and Obama was in power for eight of the more recent years, and if ‘the buck stops on the president’s desk’ then it’s fair to put some blame there."" A September 2016 report from the Obama administration’s Justice Department found that prosecutors could help combat the epidemic by prioritizing prosecution of heroin distributors and of medical professionals who improperly prescribe opioids. The report also stated that federal prosecution had ""lagged,"" and more prosecutors were needed. The report noted, however, that investigations ""can be difficult when the victim is deceased and the source of the drugs is not immediately obvious."" Trump said ""at the end of 2016, there were 23 percent fewer federal prosecutions than in 2011, so (prosecutors) looked at this surge and they let it go by."" Trump made the statement in the context of rising opioid overdose deaths. An analysis of data shows that federal drug charges overall declined 23 percent between 2011 and 2016. But that data doesn’t tell us anything about opioid cases specifically. Where Trump misses the mark is his suggestion that the drop in prosecutions is to blame for the opioid epidemic, which started before Obama’s tenure and then grew worse during his presidency. Obama could have done more earlier to address the epidemic, experts said, but there is no evidence that his strategy on federal drug prosecutions led to a spike in opioid overdose deaths." Claim: At the end of 2016, there were 23 percent fewer federal prosecutions than in 2011, so (prosecutors) looked at this scourge (opioid deaths) and they let it go by.

Ex Output:
1


Ex Input:
Paragraph: "As the national effort ramps up to beat back Ebola, the Obama administration has been taking heat. Critics say the president and top public health officials painted too rosy a picture of the country’s state of readiness. As proof, they point to the infection of two Dallas health care workers who treated the first person to die of Ebola on U.S. soil. Conservative pundit George Will attacked what to him was the hubris in those early statements. ""The problem is the original assumption, said with great certitude if not certainty, was that you need to have direct contact, meaning with bodily fluids from someone because it’s (Ebola) not airborne,"" Will said Oct. 19 on Fox News Sunday. ""There are doctors who are saying that in a sneeze or some cough, some of the airborne particles can be infectious."" Will also said Ebola could survive on a dry surface ""for a number of days."" Show host Chris Wallace cut Will off, asserting that Ebola does not spread like the flu, which does move from person to person when someone with the illness is out in public. When another guest challenged Will to cite his source, he ultimately referred to scientists at the University of Minnesota. Here, we’re fact-checking Will’s claim that scientists say a cough or sneeze can spread Ebola. From the context of the discussion, we understand that Will was talking about the risk to the general public. We reached out to Will and did not hear back but thanks to the rumor website Snopes, we have a pretty good idea where he got his information. In mid September, the University of Minnesota’s Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy posted a commentary from two University of Illinois professors. The commentary, co-written by Lisa Brosseau and Rachel Jones, argued that health care workers treating patients with Ebola should wear respirators. Face masks, they said, are not enough. We asked Brosseau if Will had correctly relayed her work. Brosseau said her views had nothing to do with Ebola spreading among the public at large. The focus was on health care workers treating people in the isolation wards. ""We were concerned about aerosols generated by infected patients in the most severe stage of the disease,"" Brosseau said. Will had mistakenly connected the pathway of infection in a hospital room with someone coughing or sneezing in public. As has been well documented, the first symptom of infection is a fever. As the virus multiplies in the body, vomiting and diarrhea set in. Brosseau had written that it is possible that for patients in that condition, tiny water particles from violent vomiting and diarrhea could get into the air and be inhaled. In a laboratory experiment, monkeys with hoods over their heads could acquire the Ebola virus, but Brosseau said that lab experiments should be put in context. ""We are not aware of any published data about the viability or infectiousness of the Ebola organism in aerosols in the real world,"" Brosseau told PunditFact. ""It appears unlikely that the public will be exposed to infectious aerosols because they are not likely to encounter infected people experiencing the severe symptoms."" We found similar views in the Oxford Journal of Infectious Diseases, and summaries issued by the Centers for Disease Control , the World Health Organization and the New England Journal of Medicine. Adam Lauring, an infectious disease researcher at the University of Michigan, emphasized that Ebola is not a respiratory disease. Coughing and sneezing are not symptoms in the way that they are with the flu. Stephen Gire, a research scientist in the Sabeti Lab at Harvard University, said if someone with Ebola sneezed or coughed into your face when you were close to them, that could transmit the virus through droplets. But, ""It’s important to note that this form of transmission does not constitute 'airborne,' "" Gire said. ""This is still a form of direct contact."" ""If you were on a plane, and someone sneezed, you wouldn’t be at risk of getting infected unless you were sneezed on directly within close quarters, and that cough or sneeze transferred droplets into mucosal membranes. This is very unlikely scenario, but not out of the realm of possibility. I think I can count on one hand the number of times I’ve been sneezed on directly, and only one of those times was by someone I didn’t know."" One of the problems with the public debate over Ebola, Lauring said, is that science can’t prove that something will never happen. On the other hand, he also said we ought to look at what has happened. ""If airborne transmission was an imminent concern, one would have to ask why no one in the United States has been infected except for two people who had close contact with the patient,"" Lauring said. ""Importantly, none of the people who were living with the patient prior to his second trip to thee Texas hospital have been infected."" While we are not fact-checking Will’s statement about infectious particles remaining alive for several days on a dry surface, Lauring said he knows of no evidence of that. Gire said it's theoretically possible under the right conditions, though it's highly unlikely. Our ruling Will said that some scientists say that Ebola can be transmitted in public by a sneeze or a cough. The source of that was a commentary about the risks to hospital workers treating people in advanced stages of the disease. One of the authors of that commentary said her work applied only to health care workers in those settings. The medical literature says sneezing and coughing are not part of the disease’s typical symptoms, and experts we reached drew a bright line between what might happen in a hospital isolation ward and a person with early symptoms of Ebola before he or she is admitted. There is no evidence that Ebola has been transmitted in the general public through coughing or sneezing. Will took a medical commentary out of context. Update (Noon, Oct. 20): After we published this item, we heard from some folks who disagreed with our ruling. Read our response here." Claim: "Some doctors say Ebola can be transmitted through the air by ""a sneeze or some cough."

Ex Output:
0


Ex Input:
Paragraph: "As the spread of coronavirus has fed fears of illness, it has also spurred fears of mass quarantines. And looking at other countries that have been hit hard by the virus, including China and Italy, it’s not an idle question. On March 12, a reader sent us a comment from a website called Stop Mandatory Vaccination, run by a group that opposes bills to curb exemptions for vaccinations. (Here’s some background on the anti-vaccine movement.) The website said in part, ""The CDC can detain anyone with a fever — indefinitely. … Vaccination (is) a way people could get out of detention."" Similar comments on social media soon prompted high-level debunkings. Late on March 15, the National Security Council took to Twitter to knock down rumors about a national quarantine: ""Text message rumors of a national #quarantine are FAKE. There is no national lockdown. @CDCgov has and will continue to post the latest guidance on #COVID19. #coronavirus."" Text message rumors of a national #quarantine are FAKE. There is no national lockdown. @CDCgov has and will continue to post the latest guidance on #COVID19. #coronavirus Quarantines are real, but there’s a lot of misinformation floating around about the details. Here, we’ll attempt to clarify what’s accurate, and what’s not, about quarantines. (An inquiry to Stop Mandatory Vaccination was not returned.) There are two related terms that address this phenomenon: quarantine and isolation. ""Isolation"" separates people with a confirmed case of a communicable disease from people who are not sick. ""Quarantine"" separates and restricts the movement of people who were exposed to a contagious disease to see if they become sick. The last federal quarantine prior to the coronavirus outbreak came in the early 1960s, when officials were concerned about a smallpox outbreak. It’s been a century — back to the 1918-19 ""Spanish flu"" pandemic — since large-scale isolations and quarantines were last enforced. Federal quarantine power stems from Section 361 of the Public Health Service Act, which authorizes the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to take measures to prevent the entry and spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries and between states. Federal regulations revised in 2017 allow the CDC ""to detain, medically examine, and release persons arriving into the United States and traveling between states who are suspected of carrying"" certain communicable diseases. (Here’s what a sample quarantine order looks like.) Those powers are carried out with help from other federal agencies, such as Customs and Border Protection and the Coast Guard. This federal government has exercised this power recently with travelers returning from locations where coronavirus has been spreading, based on presidential proclamations like this one. So far we’ve been referring to federal quarantines. But most quarantine power actually resides with state and local governments, as well as tribal law on tribal lands. That’s because federal quarantine powers are limited to persons entering the United States from elsewhere. By contrast, states and localities enforce those powers within their own borders ""CDC officials are ‘preparing as if (the new coronavirus) is the next pandemic,’ but in reality, the laboring oar falls to state and local health departments,"" Polly J. Price, a professor of law and global health at Emory University, has written in the Atlantic. So the assertion we’re checking in this article, by focusing on CDC, misses a lot of where the action is: state and local governments. Historically, forcible quarantines have been rare, and they require a court order. Most of the time, experts said, people who are infected are released on their own recognizance with a promise to self-quarantine. There’s judicial precedent for quarantine powers dating back to the early 1800s, but subsequent case law has required a degree of due process, especially given that a quarantine, unlike an arrest, involves the detention of someone who is not suspected of a crime. Past cases ""suggest that there are important limits on the ability of the U.S. and state and local governments when it comes to some types of public health action,"" said David Schultz, a professor of political science and legal studies at Hamline University. The government has to show real harm, as well as that people get due process and a chance to appeal. Becoming subject to forcible quarantines isn’t just a question of having a particular germ; it also requires a strong likelihood that you will spread it to other people. ""Since most people can take precautions, this typically only happens in the case of person who can’t stay away from other people,"" such as people who have a severe mental illness, said Wendy K. Mariner, a professor of health law at the Boston University School of Public Health. What if you refuse a mandatory order? Practical consequences for such an action are tricky. While fines and incarceration are allowed, no public health expert today recommends jailing a person unwilling to quarantine, because they would be introducing a contagion into a confined population. ""The likelier answer is hospitals with secure wards,"" Mariner said. Not any fever gets you quarantined, contrary to the assertion we’re checking. The government ""would have to have good evidence that the individual was exposed to COVID-19"" to impose a quarantine, said Lawrence O. Gostin, faculty director of Georgetown University's O'Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law. ""‘Fever’ is too broad a definition,"" Mariner agreed. In addition to coronavirus, the CDC is able to quarantine only for the following diseases: cholera, diphtheria, infectious tuberculosis, plague, smallpox, yellow fever, viral hemorrhagic fever, SARS and pandemic flu. It’s an exaggeration to say quarantine is ""indefinite"" detention by the government, especially given what we know so far about the course of coronavirus disease. First, as we noted, quarantine is usually self-regulated. And for those instances when it’s not, such as when an individual is uncooperative, the person is able to leave quarantine when they are no longer contagious. Vaccination doesn’t get you out of quarantine. Typically, vaccinations aren’t cures; they’re preventive measures. In any case, it’s moot for coronavirus, because there is no vaccine yet. Claims on the internet said ""the CDC can detain anyone with a fever — indefinitely. … Vaccination (is) a way people could get out of detention."" The CDC does have the power to isolate people with certain infectious diseases and quarantine those who had contact with an infected person. But this claim is wrong or misleading about many of the details. Most quarantine decisions will be up to states and localities, rather than the CDC. People can’t be quarantined for just having a fever; they have to be shown to have been exposed to a specific set of diseases. Most quarantines are done voluntarily, not by force of the state. And vaccination is not a ticket out of quarantine." Claim: “The CDC can detain anyone with a fever — indefinitely. … Vaccination (is) a way people could get out of detention.”

Ex Output:

0