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 Q]: Paragraph: The U.N. agency is seeking to balance the need to ensure China continues to share information about the virus while also giving sound scientific advice to the international community on the risks, according to several public health experts and a Western diplomat who tracks the WHO’s work. The WHO has declared five global emergencies in the past decade, including the ongoing Ebola epidemic in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Doing so can hurt host countries because it may lead to flight cancellations and travel or trade restrictions, dragging on the economy. In the latest case, the WHO declined to declare China’s coronavirus a public health emergency of international concern(PHEIC) twice last week, although its Emergency Committee was split “50-50” over whether to do so. “What was lacking for them to declare an international emergency were deaths abroad and human-to-human transmission outside of China,” said the Geneva-based diplomat following the agency. “If there was proof of human-to-human spread among the ‘imported’ cases, the panel would lean toward another finding.”  WHO spokesman Christian Lindmeier declined to comment beyond what he told a news briefing earlier on Tuesday. He restated that the WHO’s criteria for a global emergency include a “serious or unusual” health situation that affects other countries and may require a coordinated international response. In reply to a question, he added: “It is not ‘wildly spreading’ outside of China.”  While the vast majority of the 4,500 or so confirmed cases and all 106 deaths so far have been in China, cases in Germany, Vietnam, Taiwan and Japan where the virus has spread person-to-person have heightened concerns. “As information is coming in, it seems to be confirming our worst fears,” Lawrence Gostin, university professor at Georgetown Law in Washington, DC, told Reuters. “So I do believe that the WHO is going to have to declare an emergency and is going to have to take the lead ... You can’t leave this to China.”  The WHO’s 16-member expert panel is being “kept in the loop” and could be reconvened at any time to reassess the outbreak. “Just because of rising numbers in China now this would not automatically trigger an Emergency Committee,” Lindmeier told the briefing. A declaration would lead to boosting public health measures, funding and resources to prevent and reduce global spread. It could include recommendations on trade and travel, although the WHO generally tries to avoid disruptive trade restrictions. The Emergency Committee deliberations are secret and its members have been told not to speak about their debate, several WHO officials told Reuters. WHO chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus and Chinese President Xi Jinping met in Beijing on Tuesday to discuss how to protect Chinese citizens and foreigners in areas affected by the virus and “possible” evacuation alternatives, Lindmeier said. China has agreed that the WHO can send international experts there as soon as possible to increase understanding of the new coronavirus and guide the global response to the outbreak, the WHO said at the end of Tedros’ two-day visit. Some experts believe the Geneva-based health agency is in a difficult position, having drawn fire in the past for acting either too quickly or too slowly. “Essentially the WHO is between a rock and a hard place,” said Jeremy Farrar, an expert in infectious disease epidemics and director of the Wellcome Trust global health charity. Farrar noted that the organization was criticised for having called an early emergency in 2009 for the H1N1 flu pandemic, which proved mild, and then for being too late in declaring the Ebola epidemic in West Africa in 2014. Claim: WHO weighs science and politics in global virus emergency decision.
[EX A]: Most of the World Health Organization’s (WHO) criteria for declaring a global emergency have been met, but it is awaiting clear evidence of a sustained spread of the new coronavirus outside China before doing so, some experts and diplomats said.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: There’s no discussion of cost, even to mention that statins are relatively inexpensive these days and are mostly generically available. To its credit, the article does mention the cost of a calcium scan. We learn that “anywhere from 50 to 200 healthy people need to take a statin daily to prevent a single heart attack for five years.” That’s helpful information. It also notes that the observed benefit is less for older patients. The story could have added that even those numbers might disputed by some experts who perceive no meaningful benefit. For example, one review found being on a statin does not help people with low risk for heart disease live longer. The story does a service by highlighting the harms of statins. It explains: “The most common side effect of these drugs is muscle pain, which usually goes away if patients stop taking the medicines. People taking statins are also at a higher risk of developing diabetes, which is harder to reverse.” It also mentions the potential for overtreatment with the use of coronary calcium scans. However, we wish it had included absolute numbers. The story says harms are “uncommon,” but provides no data to back that up. Rates of adverse effects with statins have been measured at 1 to 10%, which makes them “common” in the definition of the European Medicines Agency. Also noteworthy is that some contend that adverse effects of statins have not been reliably reported. The story doesn’t explain the quality of the study, or of studies on which current guidelines are based. We don’t explicitly learn that this is a modelling study. In other words, this study consisted mostly of reinterpretations of math, not re-evaluations of real-life patients. The researchers said they were unable to obtain enough data on all possible harms and age-specific data on some harm outcomes, “so the risk thresholds we determined may still be too low.” There is no disease-mongering here. This story includes sources that weren’t involved in the study. The study’s authors reported no conflicts of interest. The story could have acknowledged the influence of pharmaceutical companies in creating guidelines for statin use. The alternative of not taking a statin was the key message here, and that’s laudable. However, we have a couple of concerns. First, we learn that “some statins were more effective than others, with atorvastatin (the generic name for Lipitor) being the best of the bunch.”  However, the story doesn’t explain on what basis some statins are “more effective.” In fact, some statins may be more effective at lower cholesterol, but the study found that no statin rises above others when it comes to the outcomes that counts most to patients — reducing cardiovascular deaths. Also, the story doesn’t mention lifestyle interventions — diet and exercise. The story makes it clear that statins are widely prescribed. The story states this an attempt to better weigh the benefits and harms of statin use. There was a good range of interviewees with no reliance on a news release Claim: Before Starting A Statin, Talk It Over With Your Doctor
[EX A]: The story reports on a study that re-assessed who benefits from taking a statin to prevent heart disease, with different risk thresholds based on sex, age group, and statin type. It reports the view that current guidelines “haven’t adequately considered” the harms from taking these widely used drugs. The story laudably focuses attention on potential adverse events and a need for balanced decision-making. It also incorporated a variety of sources. In our view, the story could done a better job in discussing costs, the quality of evidence, and alternative strategies to prevent heart disease. Statins are among the most widely prescribed drugs, with their use encouraged under guidelines such as those of the American Heart Association of the American College of Cardiology. However, data isn’t crystal clear on the benefits and harms of statins for people who don’t already have heart disease. As a result, there’s concern that they are being overused. It’s laudable that some news organizations — including CNN as well as NPR — highlighted research that explores these complexities and points out the need for patients and physicians to weigh benefits and harms. The headline of this story is, in our view, a winner.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: "You hear it often: Social Security is going broke. What you hear less often is an analysis of Social Security’s components -- its old-age retiree program and its disability program. Sen. Rob Portman discussed both parts during a newsmaker breakfast on April 9 sponsored by Politico, the Washington-based newspaper and website. Portman’s remarks on the disability program could be considered jarring to those who don’t pay close attention, so we thought we’d take a step back to check them out. Portman said, ""The Social Security disability fund is going belly up in 2016."" And 2016, he noted, is ""right around the corner."" Portman is correct -- from an accounting standpoint, and as of right now. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the most recent Social Security trustees’ annual report, the Social Security account that disburses monthly disability payments will not only pay out more money in 2016 than it takes in through taxes, but also will spend the last dollar it has in reserve by the end of that year. As budget documents put it, the Disability Insurance, or DI, Trust Fund -- the account that held surpluses and was tapped to help make up any recent shortfall -- will be ""exhausted"" that year. This is the ""disability fund"" Portman was referring to. The same fate isn’t expected to hit the other piece of the Social Security pie, Old Age and Survivors Insurance, until 2036 (or 2038 under a different analysis). Disabled workers and their spouses and dependents account for 18 percent of overall Social Security payments, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The coming shortfall will occur because disability payments have exceeded the program’s noninterest income since 2005. This occurred for several reasons, including a liberalization of the Social Security screening process with a 1984 law that made certain non-fatal conditions such as back pain, arthritis and mental illness potential qualifiers; a rise in the program’s income-replacement computation, ""which strengthened the incentives for workers to seek benefits,"" and an increase in the female labor force that expanded the pool of insured workers, according to a 2006 analysis by economists for the National Bureau of Economic Research. The latter provided more tax money but also expanded the pool eligible for benefits. But there is another reason, cited by the CBO last July: the aging of the baby boom generation. ""More older people suffer from debilitating conditions; moreover, the program’s qualification standards for older workers are less strict than those for younger workers because older people are assumed to be less able to adapt to new types of work,"" the CBO reported. It noted that ""between calendar years 1996 and 2009—the approximate period during which the baby-boom generation entered their 50s—the share of disabled worker benefits awarded to older workers (age 45 and older) rose from 67 percent to 76 percent."" But if payroll tax income to the program is insufficient already, why isn’t  the DI program broke now? The answer is that the program still has money left from better days -- held in the Trust Fund in the form of government securities. That makes it still possible to pay 100 percent of all benefits. But in 2016, those savings will be depleted., A few numbers make this clearer. In 2011, the DI program paid out $132.3 billion, including $2.9 billion in administrative expenses. But it only took in $81.9 billion in dedicated payroll taxes and $1.6 billion in income taxes that some beneficiaries must pay (depending on their incomes). To make up the rest, it tapped the Trust Fund. It will not be able to do that and pay full expected benefits in 2016. From a practical standpoint, Congress and the White House are likely to act before then. A number of proposals provide ways to avoid a retiree and disabled-worker calamity, some with changes to the payroll tax, some with benefit cuts, some with both. That makes the odds slim that Social Security’s disability fund will actually go broke. But until that happens, all anybody has are the projections. And they are clear. So is this doomsday for Social Security? Not at all. Social Security will still take in enough money to pay a percentage of the claims. Although federal law says the Trust Fund must have assets for claims to be paid, Congress can change the law. More likely is a broader fix from Congress. Portman recognizes this, as he makes clear often -- and did so again at the Politico  breakfast -- in his calls for entitlement reform. The Social Security trustees report in 2012 recognized this too, saying, ""The DI program faces the most immediate financing shortfall of any of the separate trust funds; thus lawmakers need to act soon to avoid reduced payments to DI beneficiaries four years from now."" So yes, we can hope or expect that the problem will be solved before 2016. But as of right now, Portman’s claim -- that the ""disability fund is going belly up in 2016"" -- is accurate, or as accurate as Social Security’s trustees and the CBO can be." Claim: The Social Security disability fund is going belly up in 2016.
[EX A]:
Sen. Rob Portman says the Social Security disability fund soon will run dry