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 U.S. Forest Service’s draft risk assessment suggests that even in a best-case scenario — with social distancing followed and plenty of tests and protective equipment available — nearly two dozen firefighters could be infected with COVID-19 at a camp with hundreds of people who come in to combat a fire that burns for months. The worst-case scenario? More than 1,000 infections. “The Forest Service is diligently working with partners to assess the risk that COVID-19 presents for the 2020 fire season,” the agency said in a statement Wednesday. “It is important to understand that the figures in this report are not predictions, but rather, model possible scenarios.” The Forest Service said the document was outdated and being redone, and the newest version wasn’t yet ready to share. The AP obtained the draft from an official who has access to it and didn’t want to be named. One of the authors of the risk assessment said Tuesday that in the new version, the infection rates remain the same. But while the draft originally said the death rate among infected firefighters could reach as high as 6%, that is being revised sharply downward, to less than 2%, to reflect newer data, said Jude Bayham, an assistant professor in the Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics at Colorado State University. He said the initial death rate was based on data from early in the pandemic, when testing was far more limited. Based on new data, firefighters — who are largely healthy and young — will likely fare far better if they contract COVID-19 than the general population, he said. For most people, the coronavirus causes mild or moderate symptoms, such as fever and cough that clear up in two to three weeks. For some, especially people who are older or have health problems, it can cause more severe illness, including pneumonia and death. Federal guidelines released last week reimagine how to combat wildfires to reduce the risk of firefighters getting the virus. The guidelines urge fire managers to use small crews that can have the close contact that firefighting and travel often require, while staying away from other groups. The guidelines recommend avoiding the traditional large camps and relying on military-issue ready-to-eat or bagged meals instead of catered buffet-style meals at campsites. Some fire managers also are told to take temperatures with their own touchless thermometers if possible. The guidelines say everyone should wear masks and other protective equipment when around those outside their immediate crew. Good cleaning and sanitation is recommended, as is isolating firefighters and potentially entire crews if COVID-19 is detected. A review of incident reports from wildfires so far this year show the guidelines are difficult, and sometimes impossible, to follow and could actually increase some risks to firefighters. “We have developed pinch-points that cause operational lapses in guidance that may very well get confused with policy and doctrine. This situation could result in injury — or even unwanted death — of our multiagency employees,” Greg Juvan, a fire management officer with the Idaho Panhandle National Forests, wrote in a report from a small wildfire last month. Social distancing was difficult, and firefighters found it unrealistic to meet sanitation standards for truck radios, hand tools and other gear used in the initial attack on the Idaho wildfire, Juvan said. Social distancing guidelines call for more vehicles to transport crews, but that led to congestion on the narrow roads leading to the fire. The guidelines could raise one of the greatest risks to wildland firefighters — traffic wrecks, Juvan said. Even something as basic as sanitizing vehicles proved problematic, with cleaning supplies difficult to find, the report said. In New Mexico, several agencies responded to a small wildfire last month, with some not practicing social distancing and other virus policies appearing to vary greatly, George Allalunis, a Carson National Forest engine captain, wrote in a report. For the Forest Service’s draft risk assessment, researchers created scenarios using three actual fires from 2017 and applied disease modeling. They found testing every firefighter before they started work reduced the coronavirus risk most significantly for short, high-intensity wildfires, said Bayham, the professor. But for longer, drawn-out firefights, initial testing was less important than keeping firefighters spread out in small campsites. The models showed that even with strict pre-work testing and social distancing, about 21 COVID-19 infections could be expected in a large camp like that used for a 2017 fire in Montana. In the worst-case scenario, more than 1,000 firefighters would be infected. The problem could compound as fire crews are sent to new locations over the monthslong fire season, which has largely begun. The risk assessment will be updated throughout the season, the Forest Service said. The American West could see higher-than-normal levels of wildfire this year because of drought. Claim: US report indicates broad risk of COVID-19 at wildfire camps.
[A]: Outbreaks of the coronavirus could sweep through large camps where crews typically stay as they fight wildfires across the U.S., according to a federal document obtained by The Associated Press, and the problem is likely to get worse the longer the fire season lasts.


[Q]: Paragraph: The Texas woman’s name is Cathy Flanders and she has been on a crusade to bring the problem of indoor pollution from candles to the forefront. She has filed a lawsuit against the store that sold her candles which she says resulted in toxic levels of lead in her home and with serious medical consequences on her family. Regardless of the merits of her case, it is true that indoor pollution from certain kinds of candles is becoming a focus of research and is one of the hot topics right now among professionals concerned with health issues in the home. Not all the researchers are focused on lead and there are some who say they feel the danger from lead is reduced by the fact that U.S. candle makers have not used lead in candles for more than 25 years. There is increased focus on what researchers say is a significant contribution of candles to soot residue in buildings, more than has previously been realized, and to what extent that soot can contribute to health problems. While that is being studied, pollution experts recommend choosing candles from U.S. manufacturers that are made of hard wax, have low aromatic properties, burn with a low, even flame and with wicks that burn down evenly with the rest of the candle. They also recommend keeping burning candles out of drafts and not allowing an extinguished candle to continue emitting smoke. For more information: CNN Article about Cathy Flanders Article about Black Soot in the Home from the Environmental Illness Society of Canada  Comments Claim:  An email is making the rounds that talks about a woman in Texas whose family has experienced a variety of health problems which she says are due to the lead content of some candles.  The email warns that burning candles in the home can lead to health problems.      
[A]: Beware of potential pollution from certain candles 


[Q]: Paragraph: On March 31 2019, a Facebook user shared a meme (archived here) about the purported effects of “free birth control” in the state of Colorado:Across an image of mountain scenery, the meme (watermarked by The Other 98%) read:COLORADO HAS OFFERED FREE BIRTH CONTROL FOR THE LAST 5 YEARS AND HAS SEEN:* UNINTENDED PREGNANCIES DROP BY 40% * ABORTION FALL BY 42% * MILLIONS IN PUBLIC HEALTH COVERAGE SAVEDSHARE IF YOU THINK WE NEED TO DO THIS WITH THE WHOLE COUNTRYAlthough the text described “the last 5 years,” the meme dated back to at least 2015, suggesting that it referred to a stretch between 2010 through 2015 or earlier. The meme made four claims about that time period, concluding with an opinion that the initiative ought to be implemented by other states:The source for the claims may have been a July 2015 New York Times article, published just before the earliest iteration of the meme we could find. It largely covered all four statistics mentioned in the meme, with some apparent inference in the meme:Over the past six years, Colorado has conducted one of the largest experiments with long-acting birth control. If teenagers and poor women were offered free intrauterine devices and implants that prevent pregnancy for years, state officials asked, would those women choose them?They did in a big way, and the results were startling. The birthrate among teenagers across the state plunged by 40 percent from 2009 to 2013, while their rate of abortions fell by 42 percent, according to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. There was a similar decline in births for another group particularly vulnerable to unplanned pregnancies: unmarried women under 25 who have not finished high school. […]Proponents say the program is working. The state health department estimated that every dollar spent on the long-acting birth control initiative saved $5.85 for the state’s Medicaid program, which covers more than three-quarters of teenage pregnancies and births. Enrollment in the federal nutrition program for women with young children declined by nearly a quarter between 2010 and 2013.According to the New York Times article, the birthrate among teenagers dropped 40 percent — presumably the “unplanned” pregnancies mentioned in the meme. The rate of abortions dropped 42 percent in the same cohort, but it didn’t say what the drop in non-teenaged low-income women was by comparison. It also said that for every dollar spent on the program, the state’s Medicaid program saved $5.85 — but not what the overall number of births avoided or expenditures saved might be.However, a July 2014 CNN piece described the program’s effect as of that year, providing a timeframe for the start of the initiative as well as dollar amounts saved in a single year at the beginning of its implementation:Colorado’s teen birth rate dropped 40% between 2009 and 2013, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment announced this week [in 2014], in part due to a program that provides long-acting contraception to low-income women … In 2010 alone, Colorado saved $42 million on health care costs associated with teen births, thanks to the program, according to a press release from the governor’s office.A since-archived Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment press release from November 2017 reported that the initiative continued past 2015. It continued performing above expectations, and subsequent savings of $66.1 million to $69.6 million were cited for the years between 2009 and 2015:Colorado’s teen birth and abortion rates continue to plummet under a state health department family planning program that averted nearly $70 million in state and federal spending.“This is a good example of a smart and compassionate government program,” said Dr. Larry Wolk, executive director and chief medical officer of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. “Not only did this initiative improve the health and well-being of thousands of Colorado women, it helped Colorado avoid the social and economic costs of unintended pregnancy.”From 2009 through 2016, the state birth rate fell 54 percent for women ages 15 to 19 and 30 percent for women ages 20 to 24. The state abortion rate declined 64 percent for women ages 15 to 19 and 41 percent for women ages 20 to 24. The number of teens giving birth for the second or third time dropped 63 percent during the same time period.An independent analysis by University of Colorado researchers concluded that the state health department’s family planning program was responsible for as much as two-thirds of the drop in births from 2009 through 2015, averting $66.1 million to $69.6 million in potential costs for four state and federal programs that provide health care, food and other assistance to low-income women and their infants.In other words, the meme’s claims actually understated the effects of Colorado’s free birth control program by 2019. The drop in teen births fell to 54 percent in subsequent years. The abortion rate also fell further, to 64 percent. And the 2017 update from Colorado’s health officials indicated that it estimated that $66.1 million to $69.6 million in expenditures related to unplanned pregnancies and births had been averted. Claim: Colorado introduced a free birth control program, causing unplanned births and abortions to plummet, and saving millions of dollars.
[A]:
Did Free Birth Control in Colorado Drop Unplanned Pregnancies by 40 Percent?