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.

Q: Paragraph: Dock Phillip Ellis, best remembered as the winningest pitcher on the champion 1971 Pittsburgh Pirates baseball club, was also one of his sport’s more colorful personalities, although his exploits were generally overshadowed by those of players (Curt Flood, Richie Allen, Reggie Jackson) more talented and more controversial. Ellis’ intolerance for slights which he perceived to be related to the color of his skin was well-established long before he reached the major leagues (he declined to play on his high school’s baseball team because it was coached by a “racist,” and while in the minor leagues he once took a bat into the stands in pursuit of a racially-motivated heckler), and he was the subject of several headline-grabbing altercations during his prime years in the big leagues:    “I know the orders came from [baseball commissioner] Bowie Kuhn, and I don’t like it. Look around, there are fellows who wear white shoes in practice. Some wear jackets. Others don’t wear hats. I wasn’t going to say anything, but since they seem to be aiming in my direction, I’m going to say things. They didn’t put out any orders about Joe Pepitone when he wore a hairpiece down to his shoulders.”    But, oddly enough, the most notorious aspect of Dock Ellis’ playing days wasn’t disclosed until several years after he had retired, and it involved an accomplishment that is usually the highlight of any pitcher’s career. On 12 June 1970, Ellis hurled the first no-hitter of the 1970 season as he blanked the Padres 2-0 in the opening game of a double-header in San Diego. Ellis’ feat was a bit unusual in that he seemed particularly wild that day, walking eight batters and hitting one, but many pitchers have achieved stellar results despite laboring with obvious control problems. (Yankee hurler Bill Bevens came within one out of throwing a no-hitter against Brooklyn in the fourth game of the 1947 World Series despite issuing the Dodgers an astounding ten bases on balls.) In post-game interviews Ellis said he had been thinking about a no-hitter from the fourth inning onward and attributed his wildness to his efforts to keep the ball away from hitters: “I know guys who don’t want to talk about it, but if you’re going to throw [a no-hitter], you’re going to throw it. The ball I was throwing was moving. I was keeping the ball away from the hitters. That’s why I walked so many.” Fourteen years later, however, Dock Ellis revealed an alternative explanation for his lack of control that day: he was under the influence of LSD at the time. According to accounts he gave the press in April 1984, Ellis had spent the morning of 12 June 1970 relaxing in his home town of Los Angeles, under the mistaken belief that the Pirates had the day off. Ellis said he ingested LSD around noon, but at about 1:00 PM his girlfriend picked up a newspaper and discovered that not only were the Pirates scheduled to play a double-header in San Diego that evening, but Ellis was slated to start the first game for Pittsburgh. Ellis’ companion hustled him off to the airport by 3:30 PM and got him on a flight to San Diego, where arrived at 4:30 PM, in time for the double-header’s 6:05 PM start. Ellis told reporters he remembered little of what took place during the game itself:  “I can only remember bits and pieces of the game. I was psyched. I had a feeling of euphoria. I was zeroed in on the [catcher’s] glove, but I didn’t hit the glove too much. I remember hitting a couple of batters and the bases were loaded two or three times. The ball was small sometimes, the ball was large sometimes, sometimes I saw the catcher, sometimes I didn’t. Sometimes I tried to stare the hitter down and throw while I was looking at him. I chewed my gum until it turned to powder. They say I had about three to four fielding chances. I remember diving out of the way of a ball I thought was a line drive. I jumped, but the ball wasn’t hit hard and never reached me.”  Any assignment of a “True” status to this story must be a guarded one: only Dock Ellis knows whether or not he actually took LSD the day he pitched his no-hitter, and even if he did ingest LSD that day, judging the extent to which the drug (which can affect different people in different ways) was affecting him by the time he took part in that evening’s game is problematic. Baseball is a difficult game to play at the major league level, even for skilled professionals free from the effects of mind-altering substances, yet Ellis managed to pitch a complete game that evening, apparently did not act so unusually that his teammates or manager took notice, and was quite lucid while conducting post-game interviews with the press. (Of course, since it’s a long-standing baseball superstition that players should avoid speaking to a teammate who is in the midst of pitching a no-hitter, the other Pirates likely had little or no interaction with Ellis in the dugout during the latter half of the game.) Although Ellis might correctly be described as having been “under the influence of LSD” during his no-hitter, quite possibly the drug’s primary effects had peaked and were wearing off by game time. Dock Ellis’ recollections are also somewhat questionable. Donald Hall’s 1976 biography, Dock Ellis in the Country of Baseball, initially stated that Ellis had been drinking (vodka) before his no-hitter. Ellis maintained that he never pitched again while under the influence of LSD after his 1970 no-hitter, but he later said he had also taken the drug before the 1974 Cincinnati game in which he intentionally threw at the first several batters. And that admission came after he had previously stated that he took “pep pills,” not LSD, before that 1974 game. Then he said in 1985 that he “never pitched a game in the major leagues I wasn’t high.” Claim: Pittsburgh Pirates pitcher Dock Ellis hurled a no-hitter while under the influence of LSD.

A: An unfortunate aspect of Dock Ellis’ admission is that he is now remembered by many people (especially those too young to have seen him play during his heyday with the Pirates) as “the guy who pitched a no-hitter on drugs,” a characterization which not only slights a baseball career that included some very fine moments, but also obscures the many acts of charity and conscience in which Ellis engaged both during and after his playing days: he worked with the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections to rehabilitate black prisoners, helped start the Black Athletes Foundation for Sickle Cell Research, and served as the coordinator of an anti-drug program in Los Angeles before passing away from liver disease in 2008.
****
Q: Paragraph: The Alpine republic with a population of 8.8 million has tested around 28,400 people so far with nearly 4,900 cases and 28 deaths confirmed. It was one of the first European countries to put severe restrictions on movement and close shops and schools in response to the developments in neighboring Italy and a strong increase in coronavirus infections in its western regions. In coming weeks, Austria plans to test up to 15,000 people per day, the chancellor said. “We will also launch rapid tests, to test hundreds of thousands of people, as quickly as possible,” Kurz told a news conference. He referred to brand new tests that are comparably cheap but take longer than laboratory tests used up until now. Broad testing is key to getting a clear picture of the real infection rate and an idea of how many people have developed immunity against the virus, the chancellor said. Top priority was to delay the peak of infections as long as possible to avoid a situation like in Italy or Spain, where the health systems are overwhelmed. “Our goal is that the number of infections doubles only every 14 days and not every two, three or five days and that we will set the right measures to keep it that way once we ramp up social life again,” Kurz said. Austria’s strict measures are in place until April 13, and Kurz said there was hope that a gradual withdrawal could start the day after. A government task force developing scenarios for the “ramp up” was currently dealing with questions such as in which order schools, businesses and production should restart. Lessons from other countries showed that it was crucial to remain disciplined and to make use of “big data”. Asked what he meant by “big data”, Kurz said: “We are currently working with the Red Cross and other enterprises on ideas that could be implemented in Austria and in Europe, and which are suitable for our system and our democracy.”   Austria’s Red Cross is promoting a so-called “Stop Corona” app, which enables a user to digitally store who he meets and when. If a person shows symptoms of corona disease, these contact persons can be notified. Austria’s mobile carrier A1 Telekom Austria  is already sharing results from a motion analysis application that visualizes the movement flows of groups of people with the health authority. Claim: Austria bets on mass testing to manage coronavirus spread.

A: Austria will massively expand coronavirus testing in coming days to locate and isolate infected people and avoid an Italian-like overload of its health system, Chancellor Sebastian Kurz said on Tuesday.
****
Q: Paragraph: The release notes that casting instead of surgery as an initial treatment would result in “reduced intervention costs” but that’s not very helpful if you’re unsure of the base cost of surgery. Estimates of a cost differential would have been helpful. Close contact casting would be much cheaper than open surgery for these fractures. The release includes a list of benefits of the modified casting method, with some quantification, mostly in terms of reduced complications. It says, “At 6 months, casting resulted in measures of ankle function equivalent to that with surgery. Infection and wound breakdown were more common with surgery (10 percent vs 1 percent), as were additional operating room procedures (6 percent vs 1 percent).” A release devotes a fair amount of space to harms from casting as compared with surgery: “Radiologic malunion (abnormal healing of a fracture) was more common in the casting group (15 percent vs 3 percent for surgery). Casting required less operating room time compared with surgery. There were no significant differences in other secondary outcomes: quality of life, pain, ankle motion, mobility, and patient satisfaction.” This large randomized study with high rates of completion suggests a high quality of evidence, all noted in the news release. The release would have been better if it had noted that the outcome was blinded, a very important marker of quality as it is likely to reduce the risk of bias. No signs of disease mongering. These fractures are actually quite common, especially in the elderly, so it would have been appropriate to discuss the high disease burden from these fractures. No funding sources and conflicts are mentioned in the news release. Instead, readers are referred to the published study for details on “financial disclosures, funding and support.” However, the study is only available to JAMA subscribers. The release aptly compares this new treatment with traditional surgery, which has largely been abandoned due to high rates of malunion resulting in functional deficits in displaced ankle fractures. The release also briefly mentions traditional “hard” casting. The release quotes an accompanying editorial stating that “close contact casting may be unfamiliar to some orthopedic surgeons.” Although that’s a vague statement, we can assume it’s not in widespread use. In the U.S., most orthopedists are not trained in close contact casting nor do they feel comfortable using it. Most patients will not be offered this treatment as an option for their fracture care. This treatment is not novel, but the results of this study are new. It appears to be the first to compare these treatments and show the results in a well done randomized study. The release does not rely on sensational or exaggerated language. Claim: Modified cast instead of surgery results in similar functional outcomes for ankle fracture in older adults

A:
This news release reports on the results of a randomized trial of older adults (average age 71) who had ankle fractures that were either treated with “close contact casting” or with surgery. While the outcomes after six months were similar in both groups the close contact casting was superior in terms of reduced infections and additional operating room procedures as well as being a lot safer. Yet many patients who received casting as an an initial treatment subsequently required repeat casting or surgery. The release covers most of the bases and reported fairly on the essentials of the study, while not exaggerating either the benefits or risks of the surgical option. Readers might benefit from a definition of a ‘stable’ versus an ‘unstable’ ankle fracture and of “radiologic malunion.”  The term sounds threatening but does not necessarily result in pain or functional impairment. Ankle fractures are extremely common, and perhaps more common in older people so if one type of lower-tech procedure (close casting) can be proven to be safer, equally effective and less costly than the current standard of care (surgery) this could be a major plus to the healthcare systems around the world. Even though some of the patients in the study (about 20%) who received the casting option first had to go on to have a surgical intervention or a recasting, this study reinforces the view that surgery should be the second resort in most cases. Proof that a simpler closed intervention works well and should be tried first for these fractures stands to change the treatment of this common fracture.
****