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.

Ex Input:
Paragraph: France has already ordered 1 billion masks to ease an acute shortage nationwide that has angered front-line healthcare officials and politicians as the coronavirus outbreak has swept across the country, killing at least 3,523 people. Speaking at a mask-producing factory on Tuesday, Macron said he had ordered a tripling of domestic mask production by the end of April to 10 million and production of 10,000 extra respirators by mid-May. “The priority today is to produce more in Europe and France,” Macron said at the Kolmi-Hopen factory near the western town of Angers. “By the end of the year I want to us to be fully and completely independent (in production),” he said, adding that 4 billion euros ($4.39 billion) had been set aside for the Public Health Authority to buy equipment. The pandemic has triggered a massive surge in demand for protective gear in France and neighboring European countries including Italy and Spain, with the world’s worst and second worst death tolls from the respiratory illness respectively. China, where the virus originated and where countless factories were shut down to contain its spread, accounts for more than half the global production of masks, according to the World Health Organization (WHO). New mask producers like car parts maker Faurecia, tire maker Michelin and retailer Intermarché will also push total output to 15 million per week, Macron said. The number of people in France infected with the virus rose to 52,128 on Tuesday, a 17% rise on the previous day. In 2013, France’s previous government took the decision to sharply reduce the number of face masks held in strategic reserve after a public outcry over the cost of bolstering stocks during the H1N1 bird flu crisis. Mask consumption since the onset of the coronavirus crisis has soared from four million per week to more than 40 million, but the state’s pre-crisis inventory of 140 million has proved insufficient as has the import of billions of masks. Nowhere has the shortage been felt more than in hospitals and nursing homes where health professionals have criticized the government’s slow reaction to the unfolding crisis. Sarah, a nurse in a coronavirus wing of a Paris hospital, told Reuters on Tuesday that the lack of masks for staff, but also patients, was getting worse despite government pledges. “Each patient should have their own mask, but we don’t have enough to change them and some don’t even have any. I had one (patient) who coughed on me and we didn’t have any gel left either to disinfect,” she said. “What makes me angry is that we don’t have the equipment to protect ourselves. Who will look after the patients when we fall sick?”    The management of the crisis, which has halt the economy and forced the government to lock down France until at least April 15, has also been condemned by opposition lawmakers. Far-right National Rally leader Marine Le Pen said on Monday the government had lied about “absolutely everything, without any exceptions”. Macron hit back on Tuesday. “When we fight a battle, we must be united to win it and I think that all those who are already trying to hold trials when we have not won the war are irresponsible,” he said. “The time will come for accountability.” Claim: Amid criticism, Macron vows to raise medical gear output to tackle coronavirus.

Ex Output:
President Emmanuel Macron pledged on Tuesday to make France self-sufficient in protective masks by year-end and learn lessons from the coronavirus emergency, firing back at growing criticism of his government over painful equipment shortages.


Ex Input:
Paragraph: House Speaker Jose Oliva was unsparing in his criticism of what he called the “healthcare industrial complex,” including drug companies, hospitals and medical device companies that he said were “the great robber-barons of our time.” Oliva sought to build on some of health care initiatives of last year’s legislative session, including passage of a first-in-the-nation drug importation bill. “We did not choose healthcare as our priority,” he said. “No, it chose us. It chose us through the sheer audacity of the defenders of the status quo.” With a presidential election looming this fall, fierce partisan divides could influence the work of lawmakers. But an air of collegiality prevailed Tuesday, as bouquets festooned the chambers and the Capitol halls and rotundas pulsed with activity. Opening day was also important for lobbyists and the activists who seek to influence lawmakers and the legislation that will be crafted over the 60 days the Legislature has to complete its business before adjourning. While DeSantis enjoys strong relationships with lawmakers — particularly his fellow Republicans who run both chambers of the statehouse — he may not necessarily get everything he wants during his second year as the state’s chief executive. His $91.4 billion budget calls for major spending on the environment and education — including a nearly $1 billion outlay for teacher raises and bonuses. Some fiscally conservative lawmakers said they would give the spending intense scrutiny. On the eve of the Legislature’s opening day, thousands of educators and their allies descended on the Capitol to draw attention to the governor’s plan, calling it flawed because of potential pay inequities and because veteran educators and non-teaching school employees would be left out. Some key Republicans have also cast doubt on the governor’s plan to require employers to use a federally operated electronic database known as E-Verify to check the immigration status of workers. E-Verify has been opposed by agriculture, construction, tourism interests and other industries that rely on immigrant labor. Hundreds of bills await, encompassing education spending, health care, the environment and public safety — as well as approving the billions of dollars required to keep the country’s third-most populous state operating day to day. Legislative Democrats are pushing for stronger gun control measures, but face long odds to win over their Republican colleagues. Addressing a joint session of the state House and Senate during his State of the State address, DeSantis urged cooperation — particularly when it comes to approving his agenda on the environment and education. “This is Florida’s season of opportunity,” DeSantis told lawmakers. “We have the chance to build on a strong foundation, the chance to face the challenges before us and the chance to leave a legacy of success that will benefit our people now and in the future.” Rep. Chris Sprowls, a Republican who’s next in line to be House speaker, commended DeSantis for the sweep of his speech -- covering priorities, he said, that were crucial to Florida’s future. “The members of the House want to help the governor because we believe in the same thing,” Sprowls said. However, Sprowls declined to discuss the merits of specific legislation proposed by the governor, saying that task will be undertaken in the days and weeks to come. And while the governor’s agenda appeared “bright,” he said, “nothing is ever a slam dunk.” In his opening remarks, Senate President Bill Galvano, a Republican, reminded lawmakers of their weighty responsibility. “As we go into this session let us continue to show our constituents that we can exchange and debate ideas while maintaining civility and decorum,” he told the chamber. “That we can problem solve together. That we can put aside personalities and politics for good policy. And, that we are not a microcosm of Washington, D.C., but instead will continue to be an example for Washington, D.C.” Claim: Florida Legislature sets sights on education, health care.

Ex Output:
Florida lawmakers signaled that they would likely tackle education spending and health care costs but might seek to avoid a battle over forcing employers to verify the immigration status of workers, as the 2020 legislative session began Tuesday.


Ex Input:
Paragraph: The article does an exemplary job of reporting details of access, insurance coverage, and direct costs. It cites a December 2015 journal article that concludes that PBT for a deadly form of childhood brain cancer is “cost-effective.” The article could have used more data and research results about clinical outcomes to support that statement, but that’s a minor issue on this front. The only discussion of evidence was this passage, which includes no numbers: “Yock co-authored a study published in December 2015 in the journal Cancer, which compared the cost-effectiveness of proton radiation therapy versus traditional radiation among kids with medulloblastoma. The study, which used models to measure long-term side effects and related costs in treatment, work-force participation and quality of life, found that proton therapy was cost-effective.” In pediatric brain cancer, while the numbers are relatively small, there are data to support the claims. Readers would have had a better picture of the controversy by some mention of the relatively sparse research results available about the value of PBT in prostate cancer in adults, for example, a source of heavy marketing by PBT treatment centers. Overall, the article needed more prevalence and outcome data for all forms of pediatric cancer and its therapies. The article notes in some detail the various side effects of PBT and especially of standard forms of radiation and chemotherapy treatments for childhood brain and other cancers. The story focuses on the potential long-term harms, but it would also have been helpful to know more about the short-term risks of these two forms of radiation, as well. We are indirectly told that there’s not really much evidence on this therapy and that it is largely anecdotal: “Proton beam therapy is considered a big advance in cancer therapy by some experts. Others, however, hesitate to get caught up in the early hype without more long-term evidence.” This isn’t a sufficient effort to assess the quality of evidence, so we are rating this Not Satisfactory. The story appropriately comments upon the seriousness of these tumors and the first goal of cure and then the longer-term issue of treatment side effects. The article uses quotes and opinions from a handful of well-placed pediatric oncologists. It could have found one or two sources to comment explicitly on the controversial marketing aspects of proton treatment centers, and perhaps put a bit more balance into the cheerleading aspects of the quotes, but overall, the article offers a calm and reasoned picture of PBT’s value. The article does an excellent job of describing how PBT works compared to conventional radiation, and how newer forms of PBT are reducing “scatter” even more. Very well reported here. The story highlights that there are a limited number of centers in the U.S. that offer this and that they are not evenly distributed around the country. Many patients need to make special travel/housing arrangements to complete a six-week course of therapy. The report puts PBT’s benefits in good perspective and to its great credit, notes from the outset that the treatment is no “magic wand,” but has real potential to avoid one of the big challenges of childhood cancer therapy. No evidence of that. Claim: The Promise (and Limits) of Pediatric Proton Radiation

Ex Output:

This magazine feature story falls firmly in the category of what science and medical journalists call an “explainer,” a relatively intensely reported effort to put context and common sense around an emerging and sometimes controversial discovery or treatment. In this case, it’s proton beam therapy (PBT), a sharply-focused form of radiation therapy whose tissue-sparing benefits are becoming somewhat clearer for pediatric cancer therapy, but whose rapidly expanding and heavily marketed availability still outstrips rigorous clinical evidence for wider use, especially in adult cancers of the prostate and other organs. Although the article offers little quantitative data or clinical trial results, it does a good job (from the headline to the end) of describing the pros and cons, costs and benefits of the treatment. For a parent with a child suffering from a life-threatening cancer, identifying the best new treatment regardless of cost or convenience would be the normal expectation. So that a new treatment, such as proton beam therapy, that sounds so reasonable–the potential for the same or higher level of radiation delivered to the cancer while sparing surrounding normal tissue–it would be hard not to want to have this for your child. This also leads to the challenge in that we actually don’t know if this theoretical benefit is in fact a real one. Though not stated in this article, it would be very hard to randomly assign children to conventional and proton beam therapies because the latter is available and thought better. So the result is the expansion of a much more expensive treatment with little or no proven advantage, and no study in the wings to help in the future.