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.

Example Input: Paragraph: The Democrat-led Senate and Assembly voted Thursday to repeal the exemption, which allows parents to cite religious beliefs to forego getting their child the vaccines required for school enrollment. Gov. Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat, signed the measure minutes after the final vote. The law takes effect immediately but will give unvaccinated students up to 30 days after they enter a school to show they’ve had the first dose of each required immunization. With New York’s move, similar exemptions are still allowed in 45 states, though lawmakers in several of them have introduced their own legislation to eliminate the waiver. The issue is hotly contested and debate around it has often been emotional, pitting cries that religious freedom is being curtailed against warnings that public health is being endangered. After the vote in the Assembly, many of those watching from the gallery erupted in cries of “shame!” One woman yelled obscenities down to the lawmakers below. The debate has only intensified with this year’s measles outbreak , which federal officials recently said has surpassed 1,000 illnesses, the highest in 27 years. “I’m not aware of anything in the Torah, the Bible, the Koran or anything else that suggests you should not get vaccinated,” said Bronx Democrat Jeffrey Dinowitz, the bill’s Assembly sponsor. “If you choose to not vaccinate your child, therefore potentially endangering other children ... then you’re the one choosing not to send your children to school.” Hundreds of parents of unvaccinated children gathered at New York’s Capitol for the vote to protest. Stan Yung, a Long Island attorney and father, said his Russian Orthodox religious views and health concerns about vaccines will prevent him from vaccinating his three young children. His family, he said, may consider leaving the state. “People came to this country to get away from exactly this kind of stuff,” Yung said ahead of Thursday’s votes. Supporters of the bill say religious beliefs about vaccines shouldn’t eclipse scientific evidence that they work, noting the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1905 that states have the right to enforce compulsory vaccination laws. During the Assembly’s floor debate, supporters brought up scourges of the past that were defeated in the U.S. through vaccines. “I’m old enough to have been around when polio was a real threat,” said Assemblywoman Deborah Glick, D-Manhattan. “I believe in science.... Your personal opinions, which may be based on junk science, do not trump the greater good.” Supporters also suggest some parents may be claiming the religious exemption for their children even though their opposition is actually based on scientifically discredited claims about the dangers of vaccines. The bill would not change an existing state exemption given to children who cannot have vaccines for medical reasons, such as a weakened immune system. Cuomo told reporters on Wednesday that he believes public health — and the need to protect those who cannot get vaccinated because for medical reasons — outweighs the concerns about religious freedom. “I understand freedom of religion,” he said. “I have heard the anti-vaxxers’ theory, but I believe both are overwhelmed by the public health risk.” The current measles outbreak has renewed concern about the exemptions in many states. The nation last saw as many cases in 1992, when more than 2,200 were reported. The majority of cases are from outbreaks in New York in Orthodox Jewish communities. California removed personal belief vaccine exemptions for children in both public and private schools in 2015, after a measles outbreak at Disneyland sickened 147 people and spread across the U.S. and into Canada. Maine ended its religious exemption earlier this year. Mississippi and West Virginia also do not allow religious exemptions. Once common in the U.S., measles became rare after vaccination campaigns that started in the 1960s. A decade ago, there were fewer than 100 cases a year. Claim: New York ends religious exemption to vaccine mandates.
Example Output: New York eliminated the religious exemption to vaccine requirements for schoolchildren Thursday, as the nation’s worst measles outbreak in decades prompts states to reconsider giving parents ways to opt out of immunization rules.

Example Input: Paragraph: "As schools across the country open for the uncertain, unprecedented school year to come, opinions are split on how to do so safely. Some districts have opted for completely virtual learning. Others will try a mix of both online and in-person classes, or will send younger children to school while older kids stay home, or will phase students back to the classroom gradually. Others still are calling for schools to reopen completely for those who feel well enough to teach and attend, and who aren’t especially vulnerable to COVID-19. One such voice is U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wisconsin, who in an Aug. 13, 2020 radio interview with Milwaukee talk show host Steve Scaffidi on WTMJ-AM discussed why he believes students need to return to school in person this fall. For younger people, Johnson asserted, ""seasonal flu is actually, in many cases, a deadlier virus if they contract that."" Is Johnson correct that COVID-19 is less deadly for children than the flu? Let’s dig in. COVID was less harsh on kids than the flu, this year’s stats show To back up his claim, Johnson’s office sent statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on flu and COVID-19 deaths among Americans under age 18. During the 2018-19 flu season, the CDC reported approximately 480 flu deaths among children ages 0-17, about 30% of whom had a lab-confirmed case of influenza. Comparably, 90 American youth have died from coronavirus complications from the beginning of the pandemic through mid-August, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics. More than 46,000 children were hospitalized for flu in that 2018-19 period. The hospitalization rate among children 5 to 17 was 39.2 children per 100,000 children. For COVID-19, that hospitalization rate is 6 per 100,000 children ages 5 to 17, the CDC says. In a report detailing the differences between COVID-19 and the flu, the CDC states that ""the risk of complications for healthy children is higher for flu compared to COVID-19."" And data from Wisconsin echoes that sentiment. Since the pandemic began, no children have died from COVID-19 complications, according to state Department of Health Services death data, and 147 people ages 0-19 have been hospitalized. In contrast, three pediatric flu deaths occurred during this year’s flu season, DHS data show, and 605 kids ages 17 and under have been hospitalized. The data show there have been fewer childhood deaths from COVID-19 so far this year than from the seasonal flu. The hold-up, of course, lies in nuance, said Dr. Jon Temte, associate dean for public health and community engagement within UW-Madison’s School of Medicine and Public Health. ""U.S. schools have been out (and) mostly closed since March, thus extremely limiting cases of SARS-CoV-2 in children. Conversely, we rarely close schools for influenza, thus allowing an attack rate of 30-40% in school-aged children,"" Temte wrote in an Aug. 27, 2020 email to PolitiFact Wisconsin. That is, the flu has been able to spread through children more commonly than COVID-19, creating more cases, more complications and more deaths. Other experts agree. Dr. Chad Vercio, chair of pediatrics at Riverside University Health System in California, said children’s risk from the coronavirus depends on how widespread the virus is in any given area, and that ""it is unknown"" if COVID hospitalization rates would rise once schools reopen. And though the early data suggests that COVID-19 is not as bad for children as the flu, it’s just that: Early. Dr. Vidya Mony, an infectious disease expert with Santa Clara Valley Medical Center in San Jose, Calif., said there isn’t enough data yet to say indisputably that COVID risks are lower for kids. Johnson claimed that in many cases, the seasonal flu was a deadlier virus for youth than COVID-19. The numbers show that this year, that was the case. More children died from flu complications than from COVID-19, and were hospitalized at higher rates for the flu. But experts caution that we don’t have enough data to paint the full picture so early in the game, and that schools shutting down in early spring may have driven down coronavirus case rates in children — meaning we can’t be sure exactly how the virus will move through young people when more of them are potentially getting exposed. Our definition for  is ""the statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information."" That fits here." Claim: For younger people, seasonal flu is “in many cases” a deadlier virus than COVID-19
Example Output: Hospitalizations and deaths among children are higher for the seasonal flu than they are for COVID-19   The CDC states that the risk of complications for healthy children is higher for flu compared to COVID-19, though kids with underlying medical conditions will be at greater risk for both    But experts caution that we might not yet see the whole picture of how dangerous the coronavirus is for kids because schools largely shut down when it started to spread, shielding them from that potential place of exposure.

Example Input: Paragraph: In the summer of 2020, readers asked Snopes to examine the accuracy of claims that, if and when a COVID-19 coronavirus vaccine emerges, individual states could, in principle, be authorized to fine or even jail those who refused to take it. The inquiries stemmed from an Aug. 7, 2020, article published by KGTV in San Diego, California, which bore the headline “States Have Authority to Fine or Jail People Who Refuse Coronavirus Vaccine, Attorney Says.” The attorney in question was Dov Fox, a law professor and director of the Center for Health Law Policy and Bioethics at the University of San Diego. The article began: As drugmakers race to develop a vaccine against the coronavirus, several legal questions are emerging: could the government require people to get it? Could people who refuse to roll up their sleeves get banned from stores or lose their jobs? The short answer is yes, according to Dov Fox, a law professor and the director of the Center for Health Law Policy and Bioethics at the University of San Diego. “States can compel vaccinations in more or less intrusive ways,” he said in an interview. “They can limit access to schools or services or jobs if people don’t get vaccinated. They could force them to pay a fine or even lock them up in jail.” Fox noted authorities in the United States have never attempted to jail people for refusing to vaccinate, but other countries like France have adopted the aggressive tactic. The legal precedent dates back to 1905. In a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case, Jacobson v. Massachusetts, the court ruled Massachusetts had the authority to fine people who refused vaccinations for smallpox. The interview with Fox was republished by WMAR and on the Newsbreak website. Fox’s assessment was accurate. The 1905 Supreme Court decision he highlighted set a precedent for subsequent court rulings that have reaffirmed, over the ensuing century, that state and local authorities can, in principle, impose penalties — including criminal sanctions — upon individuals who refuse to undergo mandatory vaccinations. In February 1902, the Board of Health in Cambridge, Massachusetts, introduced a regulation requiring that any resident who had not been vaccinated against smallpox in the previous five years must be vaccinated or revaccinated. Massachusetts state law imposed a fine of $5 for anyone over the age of 21 years old who was eligible to receive the vaccine but refused. In July of that year, Henning Jacobson, a Swedish immigrant and Lutheran pastor aged in his 40s, refused to be vaccinated and was arrested and charged with violating the state’s compulsory vaccination law. He was tried and convicted and fined $5. Jacobson challenged his conviction, but the Massachusetts Supreme Court upheld it, and he took his case to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1904. According to a contemporary news report, Jacobson’s legal challenges were funded by the Anti-Compulsory Vaccination Society. In February 1905, the court issued its decision, upholding the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision and ruling that the state law that Jacobson was found to have violated was not in breach of his constitutional rights. His conviction was upheld. In the majority opinion, Justice John Marshall Harlan summarized some of the main issues at stake: […] The defendant [Jacobson] insists that his liberty is invaded when the State subjects him to fine or imprisonment for neglecting or refusing to submit to vaccination; that a compulsory vaccination law is unreasonable, arbitrary and oppressive, and, therefore, hostile to the inherent right of every freeman to care for his own body and health in such way as to him seems best; and that the execution of such a law against one who objects to vaccination, no matter for what reason, is nothing short of an assault upon his person. But the liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States to every person within its jurisdiction does not import an absolute right in each person to be, at all times and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint. There are manifold restraints to which every person is necessarily subject for the common good. On any other basis organized society could not exist with safety to its members. Society based on the rule that each one is a law unto himself would soon be confronted with disorder and anarchy…’ ‘Police Power’ The Jacobson decision was based in part on a long-standing principle known as the “police power” doctrine, which gives a state the authority to, in certain circumstances and within certain parameters, limit the individual rights of those living within its jurisdiction in order to protect the common good or preserve safety. It applies particularly to actions or behaviors that would not ordinarily be regarded as criminal or aberrant. For example, peacefully walking down a public street after dark is almost always regarded as acceptable, non-criminal behavior and fully in keeping with a person’s constitutionally enshrined individual liberty. However, in specific circumstances — for example where rioting in a particular city or neighborhood means state or local authorities decide the common good is best served by imposing a curfew — walking down a public street after dark, although not inherently criminal or dangerous to others, can lawfully be prohibited in a specific location for a defined period of time, and those who insist on doing it can lawfully be subjected to criminal penalties. One academic paper summarized the police power principle as follows: “The doctrine of state ‘police power’ was adopted in early colonial America from firmly established English common law principles mandating the limitation of private rights when needed for the preservation of the common good. It was one of the powers reserved by the states with the adoption of the federal Constitution and was limited only by the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause — which mandates preeminence of federal law in matters delegated to the federal government — and the individual rights protected in the subsequent Amendments. The application of police power has traditionally implied a capacity to (1) promote the public health, morals, or safety, and the general well-being of the community; (2) enact and enforce laws for the promotion of the general welfare; (3) regulate private rights in the public interest; and (4) extend measures to all great public needs.” The state police power doctrine is the reason why mandatory quarantine and isolation orders, curfews, and indeed mandatory vaccination programs, are rarely successfully challenged in the courts. Just as the Constitution’s protection of individual liberties is not absolute, limits also exist on the authority of a state to prohibit or compel an individual’s actions. In the case of mandatory vaccination, the Supreme Court outlined some of those issues in its opinion in the Jacobson case, writing: A statute requiring the vaccination of all the inhabitants of a State at a specified time irrespective of the presence of smallpox and without regard to individual conditions of health, or a set of rules and regulations made by the legislature itself, which must necessarily be more or less inelastic, would be far less just than this statute which delegates discretion to local public officials […]. Arbitrary action by the Board of Health, ‘with evil mind,’ might result in a denial of due process of law. If they picked out one class of persons arbitrarily for immediate vaccination, while indefinitely postponing action toward all others, or if they otherwise abused their discretion their action might be in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment […] The precedent set by the Supreme Court in the Jacobson ruling persists to the present day. In 2015, almost 110 years later, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit explicitly cited the case when affirming the constitutionality of a New York state law that makes vaccination mandatory for public school students. The appeals court opinion stated: “Plaintiffs argue that New York’s mandatory vaccination requirement violates substantive due process. This argument is foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts […].” In another landmark decision in 1922, the Supreme Court wrote that the Jacobson ruling had “settled that it is within the police power of a State to provide for compulsory vaccination.” Claim: Individual U.S. states would be legally authorized to impose criminal penalties on individuals who refused to undergo a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination.
Example Output:
It’s clear that the doctrine of state police power, as set out in the Jacobson case and subsequent federal court decisions, means individual states could, in principle, introduce a constitutionally sound mandatory COVID-19 vaccination program, and states could impose criminal penalties for those who, without a recognized exemption, refused to be vaccinated. Fox’s central claim, and KGTV’s reporting of it, were therefore accurate.