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: The purpose of the fund is to assist developing countries with weak health systems in addressing the crisis as well as to tackle the long-term consequences. The United Nations could make a formal announcement this week, the ministry said. Norway, which suggested the fund, has not committed how much money it would put into the initiative, similar to a 2014 United Nations Ebola Response Fund. “We want to make sure that the efforts are as unified as possible and as early as possible so that we can answer up to the demands that countries will have, especially the poorest countries,” Foreign Minister Ine Eriksen Soereide told Reuters. Almost 340,000 people have been infected by the novel coronavirus across the world and more than 14,500 have died, with deaths in Italy surpassing the toll in China, where the outbreak began, according to a Reuters tally. In Africa, Angola, Eritrea and Uganda have confirmed their first cases, while Mauritius recorded its first death as the virus spreads across the continent despite efforts by governments to hold it back. In the Middle East, the first two cases of coronavirus were confirmed in the densely populated Gaza Strip on Sunday. U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres on Thursday called on wealthy countries to not just think about their citizens but help less-prepared nations tackle the crisis. “A wealthy country must not be convinced that it has only to deal with its own citizens. It’s in the interests of a wealthy country to contribute to a global response because the crisis can come from wherever, at any moment,” he told reporters. Claim: U.N. to create global coronavirus fund, Norway says.
[A]: The United Nations will create a fund to prevent the spread of coronavirus and support the treatment of patients worldwide, Norway said on Monday.


[Q]: Paragraph: Costs are mentioned reasonably early in the story, and with specificity. This was good to see. Benefits of these tests are touted, but not quantified. An officer of the National Ovarian Cancer Research Fund Alliance, an advocacy group, testifies that the outcomes of women who have surgery from a gynecologic oncologist “are much better.” But we don’t know what that means. Is it longer survival? Later the story explains that combining the two blood tests with assessment by a clinician “better determined the patients who should be referred to a [gynecological oncologist], identifying well over 90 percent of the women who actually had cancer.”  (Note that this statistic reflects only referral to a gyn-onc, not patient survival.) But how does that compare to the standard assessment tools? A 2016 study described as publication “of the first clinical utility data” demonstrating that use of OVA1 resulted in referral of ovarian patients to gynecologic oncologists offers similar outcomes but is not mentioned in the story. We’re told that experts fear that these tests could lead to unnecessary surgery or delayed diagnosis, and that’s sufficient for a Satisfactory rating. The story could have delved into a bit more of the specifics: What is the evidence for these concerns? What are the false positive and false negative rates? These details are useful because the point of the story is that clinicians are not using these tests to try to improve outcomes of ovarian cancer patients. Are the possible debits–or uncertainties driven by lack of clinical data–contributing to these decisions? There isn’t sufficient information on the evidence behind these tests. The FDA has approved ROMA and OVA1 for use, but the studies that led to that decision are not discussed. Nor is there sufficient discussion of why the physician groups that write guidelines haven’t endorsed the tests. Their concerns are raised, but the evidence is not presented or analyzed. A late diagnosis of ovarian cancer is way too common, and the outcome is grim. At the same time, the anecdotes seem to highlight the sad aspect of the disease without necessarily providing a relevant case in which the tests described would have helped (any more than a basic blood test would have). The companies responsible for developing and marketing these two tests are front and center in this story, with scientists affiliated with the companies clearly identified. At least two sources in the story—one of them a scientist affiliated with the National Comprehensive Cancer Network—appear to be independent of the companies. The story makes it clear that no effective early detection screening test exists. Existing strategies—the CA125 blood test and vaginal ultrasound—are mentioned and then discounted, in part via a personal narrative of a young woman who received a late diagnosis of cancer. While data-driven specifics aren’t included on why standard methods aren’t sufficient, this is enough to rate Satisfactory. A direct comparison of survival stemming from existing diagnostic tests relative to survival stemming from ROMA and OVA1 would have strengthened the story. If those numbers aren’t available, that should have been pointed out. The story makes it clear that the two blood tests have been available since 2009. The story mentions that the tests are combinations of existing tests with a “proprietary” formula (essentially a risk prediction tool) to translate the results to likelihood of cancer. But, the article should have talked about whether the tests, other than CA-125, have been used before. This appears to be an enterprise story, and does not rely on a news release. Claim: Ovarian cancer blood tests: Available, not widely used
[A]: This is a story about the apparent underuse of two blood tests—ROMA and OVA1—that are FDA approved to help clinicians decide whether surgery to investigate abnormal growths should be performed by a gynecologic oncologist (“gyn-onc”) trained to remove malignant ovarian cancer, rather than an obstetrician-gynecologist or a general surgeon. The gist of the story is that the tests have not been widely adopted in the ensuing years, “largely because they haven’t been recommended by the physician groups that write the care guidelines.” The story hit on a lot of important notes–it told readers the cost of these tests, and it included comments from independent sources. What is not clear is the extent to which clinical evidence supports the increased use of the two tests. We’re told they accurately picked up about 90 percent of cancer cases. But we’re not told how that compares to standard methods of detection. As the story notes, surviving ovarian cancer is an uphill battle–it is often a deadly disease caught too late. Any procedure that increases the probability of survival is worth careful consideration.


[Q]: Paragraph: "The Sunday news shows broke from their usual coverage of Washington’s inner-workings to examine another institution fraught with controversy: the National Football League. The heat is on NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell for his discipline of former Baltimore Ravens running back Ray Rice, who was shown in a video leaked last week punching out his now-wife Janay Rice in an Atlantic City, N.J., casino elevator in February. The video’s release prompted more voices to question Rice’s initial two-game suspension as too lenient, including Goodell, who announced Rice’s indefinite suspension amid fallout from the video. To some sports pundits and victim advocates, that’s not nearly enough to prove Goodell is for real about punishing players accused of domestic violence. Washington Post sports columnist Mike Wise said Goodell should lose his job on CNN’s State of the Union. ""The thing that bothered me most is Roger Goodell at one point tried to play essentially a marriage counselor with the victim and the perpetrator, Janay and Ray Rice,"" Wise said. ""He put the victim and the perpetrator together. Every domestic violence agency, every law enforcement agency, that’s a no-no."" Wise continued: ""She is sitting, telling her story in front of the person who essentially abused her. And it’s the tone deafness of those types of things that show me that this commissioner does not take domestic violence seriously enough."" PunditFact wondered if Wise is right: Did Goodell talk to victim Janay Rice with Ray Rice present? And does that violate the policy of domestic violence advocacy organizations and law enforcement agencies? The meeting lead-up and fallout An NFL spokesman declined to comment, citing the investigation by former FBI director Robert Mueller of the NFL's actions. The meeting in question occurred June 16 at the NFL’s headquarters in New York, three months after a New Jersey grand jury indicted Rice on charges of third-degree aggravated assault from the elevator incident. Ray Rice, who married Janay Rice on March 28, was accepted into a pretrial intervention program to avoid time behind bars in May. The purpose of the mid-June meeting was to discuss disciplinary action by the NFL. Sports Illustrated’s Peter King broke the first details about the meeting, citing anonymous inside sources that the NFL has not contradicted. The meeting included not just Goodell and Ray and Janay Rice, but also Ravens General Manager Ozzie Newsome, Ravens President Dick Cass, and two NFL executives, King reported. In the meeting, Janay Rice asked Goodell to be lenient to Ray Rice, the source told King, saying major discipline could ruin the running back’s career. On July 24, the NFL announced it would suspend Rice for just two games, setting off early waves of criticism. King’s story is important because it informed the subsequent chorus of columns and punditry that slammed Goodell for not talking to the couple separately. The popular sports blog Deadspin quoted two domestic violence victim advocates -- Rene Renick, vice president of programs and emerging issues with the National Network to End Domestic Violence, and attorney adviser Viktoria Kristiansson of prosecutor resource group AEquitas -- who said Goodell’s combined meeting with the couple was inappropriate. ""Even having the two of them in the room and thinking that she can speak freely in that kind of a situation is crazy,"" Renick told Deadspin. ""There is no way she can speak freely. And if there was any chance that she was afraid or coerced, she couldn't have said that. She would have been probably in a whole lot of danger."" A columnist for the Ravens’ hometown paper, the Baltimore Sun’s Dan Rodricks, interviewed a local social worker and counseling professor who echoed that point. And Wise, too, wrote a July 29 column that went into more detail about Goodell’s meeting with the couple than Wise discussed on CNN. In an interview with PunditFact, Wise said the meeting was ""ethically irresponsible"" and shows Goodell’s background lacks professional mental health training. ""I have no qualms whatsoever about maintaining that law enforcement agencies and domestic violence advocates on the whole support not interviewing a perpetrator and the abused together, especially when deciding matters of discipline for the perpetrator,"" Wise said. Law enforcement policies Ruth M. Glenn, interim executive director of the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, confirmed to PunditFact what other domestic violence advocates told other news organizations: Goodell should not have talked to Janay Rice in front of her husband. ""When that incident is being reviewed, investigated, whatever it is, there should never be an opportunity where that inquiry occurs when they’re both present,"" Glenn said. ""Absolutely, it doesn’t make it any different if it had happened a day before."" Glenn said the domestic violence prevention community has pushed for years for law enforcement agencies to adopt policies that call for interviewing victims and suspects separately (example of model policies and checklists here.) We found plenty of examples of law enforcement agencies that expressly say to separate the victim, suspect and witnesses involved in the dispute, including Santa Clara County (Calif.), Kentucky, Michigan, South Carolina and New Jersey. (We didn’t have time to check each district or state by our deadline, and the U.S. Department of Justice did not offer a comment, but we are comfortable saying this policy is widespread.) Stanford University law professor Robert Weisberg noted that detectives always question witnesses separately. Still, while separation may be required in the immediate aftermath of an incident, it isn’t always maintained throughout the legal process, said said Charles H. Rose III, Stetson University College of Law professor. Sometimes couples in domestic violence cases are interviewed together so officials can judge how they act with one another. ""By the time Goodell was involved it was no longer necessary to have them be interviewed apart,"" Rose said. ""In effect, the wagons had already been circled."" Also left unsaid by Wise: Goodell was not initiating a law enforcement investigation. That already had occurred. ""You cannot apply a law enforcement paradigm to an employment issue,"" Rose said. ""Different standards, different law, and different results."" Goodell’s goal for talking with Ray and Janay Rice may not have been analogous with a law enforcement investigation, cautioned James Acker, a University at Albany-SUNY School of Criminal Justice professor. ""If it was, then for the same reasons, such a joint discussion would not likely be appropriate,"" Acker said. ""On the other hand, for all I know, the context was quite different. Perhaps Goodell already had received a factual account elsewhere; perhaps he wanted to attempt to gauge the Rices' relationship and try to form an impression of them together."" Our ruling Wise has a problem with Goodell meeting with Ray and Janay Rice together as Goodell sought information about the February elevator incident and aftermath that would inform Rice’s discipline by the league. First, there’s little debate that the meeting occurred, as it has been widely reported and not challenged by the NFL. Second, Wise also claimed that ""in every domestic violence agency, every law enforcement agency"" a meeting like that would be ""a no-no."" That’s for the most part correct as well, though experts we spoke to questioned whether it’s the right parallel to draw. Questioning victims separately from suspects in domestic violence cases does appear to be a widespread practice both encouraged by domestic violence advocates and many police and state policies after an incident occurs. But Goodell was not conducting a criminal investigation -- that already had occurred, and he had access to that information. Also, there are occasions when couples involved in domestic violence cases are interviewed together later, allowing police and prosecutors to judge how they act with one another so they can assess credibility and potential prosecution, one expert told us. Setting aside whether the comparison is apt, Wise’s claim is accurate but needs clarification or additional information." Claim: "Mike Wise Says NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell interviewed domestic abuse victim Janay Rice with Ray Rice present and for ""every domestic violence agency, every law enforcement agency, that’s a no-no."
[A]:
"Wise has a problem with Goodell meeting with Ray and Janay Rice together as Goodell sought information about the February elevator incident and aftermath that would inform Rice’s discipline by the league. First, there’s little debate that the meeting occurred, as it has been widely reported and not challenged by the NFL. Second, Wise also claimed that ""in every domestic violence agency, every law enforcement agency"" a meeting like that would be ""a no-no."" That’s for the most part correct as well, though experts we spoke to questioned whether it’s the right parallel to draw. Questioning victims separately from suspects in domestic violence cases does appear to be a widespread practice both encouraged by domestic violence advocates and many police and state policies after an incident occurs. But Goodell was not conducting a criminal investigation -- that already had occurred, and he had access to that information. Also, there are occasions when couples involved in domestic violence cases are interviewed together later, allowing police and prosecutors to judge how they act with one another so they can assess credibility and potential prosecution, one expert told us. Setting aside whether the comparison is apt, Wise’s claim is accurate but needs clarification or additional information."