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.
--------
Question: The Health Department said Wednesday that different variations of the virus are circulating in different parts of the state. The agency says 21 pneumonia and flu deaths have been reported so far this season. Last season, 237 New Mexicans died of pneumonia and/or influenza. Symptoms may include rapid onset of illness with fever, cough, sore throat, headache and/or muscle aches. New Mexico Health Secretary Kathyleen Kunkel says with the holidays approaching, it’s important that people take preventive measures such as getting vaccinated, covering coughs and staying home when sick. Officials say the peak of the flu season is still to come.

Answer: Health officials: Flu activity widespread in New Mexico.


Question: This release makes no mention of the costs of the drugs compared in this study, even though the drugs have been in use for years and are widely available. Since the study is a comparison of various treatments for this form of cancer, it seems relevant to offer a cost comparison as well as a comparison of efficacy. It appears that the high dose methotrexate is given over a 24-hour period, presumably in the hospital, while the standard methotrexate is given as a single dose. Also, the high dose methotrexate is followed by leucovorin administration while the standard dose is not. According to the site GoodRx, the cost for methotrexate in low-dose (2.5 mg) pill form averages out to about $50 for a month’s supply. Newer, injectable variations of the drug cost upwards of $500 a month for the 25 mg dose. The release states that patients receiving high doses of the drug methotrexate “had a significantly better outcome, by 5 to 6 percent” than did patients receiving the current standard of care, which is gradually escalating doses of the drug. The release also explains that patients nine years old or younger who were also treated with a steroid called decadron (dexamethasone) for half as long as normal (14 versus 28 days) benefited from the treatment while patients 10 and older did not. We’re not sure of the meaning behind these results as portrayed in the release. Which outcome was better by 5 or 6 percent? The study has several. Does that mean the relapse rate was reduced or is it the event free survival that was better? It would be more meaningful to readers if the release had included the actual relapse and event free survival rates for each group analyzed in terms most people can understand. For example: “relapse rates were 5 percent lower in Group X compared to Group Y.” We’ll give this category a satisfactory rating largely due to the release including information that patients 10 and older receiving dexamethasone “were at much higher risk for a debilitating bone condition called osteonecrosis,” although we would have been happier if that greater risk would have been quantified. However, the published study explains that there were toxicity problems beyond that of dexamethasone and the release would have been stronger including that information as well. The release stated the study was randomized and controlled, and provides a broad overview of the study design, for which we give the release a borderline satisfactory under this criteria. However, these are the superficial results. On deeper delving into the study methodology, the statistical significances of the results were very close to not statistically significant. This is due to their planned interim stopping of the treatment and the fact that they were looking at multiple outcomes in multiple groups. This release doesn’t demonstrate disease-mongering. While the release does say that this clinical trial was run by the Children’s Oncology Group, which is funded by the National Cancer Institute and the National Institutes of Health, it makes no mention of possible conflicts of interest. Compounding that is the fact that the published study says, “Disclosures provided by the authors are available with this article at www.jco.org,” but that information is behind the journal’s paywall for most readers, so it’s unknown if there is, or is not, a conflict. It appears as though five of the authors (out of a total of about 20) have some conflicts of interest, mostly from several types of drug company payments. The release is comparing the efficacy of treatment regimens using different drugs so alternative treatments for B-acute lymphoblastic leukemia are noted. The release makes clear at the end that the treatment of this disease is improving thanks to refinement of the use of existing drug treatments, meaning that they are readily available for patient use. The release suggests the study findings could change the way childhood leukemia is treated. Modifying existing treatments to enhance a patient’s survival is certainly novel enough to warrant a release. There is no use of unjustifiable language in this release. However, the tone may be a bit overly optimistic given the study findings.

Answer: Relapses of childhood leukemia improve with high doses of common chemo drug


Question: The National Health Commission said on Monday that 78 new asymptomatic cases had been identified as of the end of Sunday, compared with 47 the day before. Imported cases and asymptomatic patients, who show no symptoms but can still pass the virus on, have become China’s chief concern after draconian containment measures succeeded in slashing the overall infection rate. Hubei province, the original epicentre, accounted for almost half the new asymptomatic cases. A total of 705 people with asymptomatic cases were under medical observation around mainland China. The surge in asymptomatic cases, which China only began reporting last week, poses a worry as Hubei’s capital Wuhan prepares to allow people to leave the city on April 8 for the first time since it was locked down in late January. Wuhan officials revoked the “epidemic-free” status of 45 residential compounds due to the emergence of asymptomatic cases and other unspecified reasons, according to a report on Monday by the official Xinhua news agency. “Epidemic-free” status allows people living in Wuhan compounds to leave their homes for two hours at a time. China has now reported a total of 81,708 cases, with 3,331 deaths. One new locally transmitted infection was reported in the latest data, in the southern province of Guangdong, down from five a day earlier in the same province. China has closed its borders to foreigners as the virus spreads globally, though most imported cases have involved Chinese nationals returning from overseas. It began testing all international arrivals for the coronavirus from April 1, customs official Song Yueqian said. Of the new cases showing symptoms, 38 entered China from abroad, compared with 25 a day earlier. Of those, 20 arrived in the northeastern province of Heilongjiang from neighbouring Russia. All were Chinese citizens who had flown from Moscow to Vladivostok and travelled to China overland. China will work to prevent cases being imported through land borders, the government said after a meeting chaired by Premier Li Keqiang on Monday，which noted the number of such cases had exceeded cases recorded at airports recently. Those who try to hide their travel history or health condition face a fine of up to 30,000 yuan ($4,230) or even criminal proceedings, Song said, adding such people will be placed on a customs “blacklist” of travellers who will be subject to tighter checks in future. Another possible source of infection are the 1.6 million Chinese who study overseas, many of whom have struggled to return home since international flights were reduced. Charter flights are being arranged to bring home Chinese students in the United States, starting with the youngest, China’s embassy in Washington said. The ambassador, Cui Tiankai, noted in the New York Times on Monday there had been “unpleasant talk” between the two countries about the virus. “But this is not the time for finger-pointing. This is a time for solidarity, collaboration and mutual support,” Cui wrote. Amid criticism China was too slow to warn the international community about the outbreak, Xinhua on Monday published a “detailed timeline” of the country’s coronavirus response and information sharing, from late December 2019 to March 2020. China started reporting to the United States “regularly” on the epidemic and containment measures from Jan. 3, according to the timeline. Click here for an interactive GRAPHIC tracking global spread of coronavirus

Answer:
China sees rise in asymptomatic coronavirus cases, to tighten controls at land borders.