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: Austria has closed schools, restaurants, bars, theatres and other gathering places, including non-essential shops. People have been told to stay at home and work from there if possible. The country has reported 108 deaths and more than 9,000 cases, fewer than its neighbours Italy and Switzerland and within its health system’s capacity so far, but Kurz told a news conference its intensive care capacity could be exceeded by mid-April. “Many cannot imagine what is heading our way within weeks, but the truth is that this is the calm before the storm. And to tell how horrific that storm can be, you can look at our neighbour Italy,” Kurz said, referring to hospitals unable to cope with the number of sick people, and hundreds of dead a day. The rate of infection remains “far too high”, Kurz said, adding that less than medical-grade masks would be distributed this week, probably from Wednesday. “As of the moment, these masks are handed out in front of supermarkets it will be compulsory to wear them in supermarkets,” Kurz said, adding that the aim in the medium-term was for people to wear them in public more generally as well. While the masks would not protect the wearer against infection, they would stop them sneezing or coughing on others and potentially infecting them, he added. The World Health Organization has, however, been sceptical about such measures. “There is no specific evidence to suggest that the wearing of masks by the mass population has any particular benefit,” Dr Mike Ryan, the WHO’s top emergencies expert, told a news conference later on Monday while adding that he was not aware  of Austria’s measure specifically. “In fact there is some evidence to suggest the opposite in the misuse or (not) wearing a mask properly or fitting it properly or taking it off and all the other risks that are otherwise associated with that.”  Austria is also carrying out tests on a representative sample of 2,000 people to get a clearer understanding of how much of the population has been exposed to the virus, Kurz said, adding that Austria was one of the first countries in Europe to do so. The results will be available at the end of the week. Claim: Austria to make basic face masks compulsory in supermarkets.

A: Austria will require shoppers to wear basic face masks in supermarkets in a bid to slow the still too-rapid spread of the coronavirus, Chancellor Sebastian Kurz said on Monday.
****
Q: Paragraph: Most people know roughly what a bottle of vitamin D supplements might cost them, so the lack of information on cost is not a significant gap. We appreciate that the story provided data showing the large and growing amount our society is spending on vitamin D supplements ($430 million in 2009), with apparently little health benefit to show for it. The story was mostly concerned with discussing the lack of benefit from taking extra vitamin D and calcium. And in this area it excels. While the story does lack precision when it suggests that adolescent girls should be getting more calcium (it never specifies how much they are getting now, how much more they’d need to meet the recommendations, or what benefits they might expect from this increased intake), it would be difficult for a journalist to come up with any sort of quantifiable benefit or harm estimate from the IOM report. The story captured the overall gist of the problem, which is that the evidence base is complex and still inadequate. The story notes that, contrary to the claims of many advocates for increased supplemental vitamin D, there is evidence that high levels of vitamin D may have adverse effects, such as increased risk for fractures and an increase in the overall death rate. The story also explained that too much calcium has been linked to increased risk of kidney stones and, more tentatively, heart disease. The story did a good job of describing how the expert committee conducted its review and what evidence they found. Importantly, it noted that  claims of benefit from extra vitamin D are based on observational studies that most scientists agree “cannot determine cause and effect.” We also like that the story solicited opinions from a variety of experts with no obvious stake in the controversy. This produced a number of quotes that emphasized the need for restraint when interpreting the research on vitamin D. Examples: “I think this report will make people more cautious” and “The onus is on the people who propose extra calcium and vitamin D to show it is safe before they push it on people.” Although we agree with the story’s skeptical overall message, we think it may have slammed the door just a bit too hard on the possibility of benefit from supplemental vitamin D. While claims of benefit may not be supported by the currently available evidence, they have not been conclusively disproved in randomized controlled studies, either. In fact, research is now underway to determine whether the benefits found in observational studies of vitamin D can be replicated in more rigorously designed trials. The story probably should have mentioned this research, and left the door to potential benefits open just a crack. No disease-mongering here. The diversity of independent voices included in this story is a real strength. Although it solicits the obligatory comment from a supplement industry spokesman, it didn’t go out of its way to find any of the more widely known vitamin D experts, some of whom have been issuing recommendations that are untenable based on current evidence. The enthusiasm of some of these researchers might be explained by their significant career and financial interests in promoting vitamin D. Not applicable for this story. The approaches discussed are not new, and there’s not really any alternative to getting adequate amounts of these essential nutrients. The availability of vitamin D from diet, sunlight and supplements is clear from the story. The novelty of vitamin D and calcium is not really in question, so we’ll call this not applicable. This story was not based on a news release. Claim: Report Questions Need for 2 Diet Supplements

A: In one particularly effective passage, the story quoted a representative of a supplement industry group who disagreed with the report, saying that higher levels of vitamin D could be beneficial. But it then segued immediately into an explanation of why claims from supplementation advocates “are not supported by the available evidence.” The key problem, as the story points out, is that these claims are based almost exclusively on observational studies that can’t prove cause and effect and are often skewed by factors the researchers haven’t accounted for. Proponents of supplementation also have tended to downplay the possibility that higher doses of vitamin D and calcium might cause harm–a stance which the story notes may not be justified. We applaud this story’s effort to show readers where the weight of the evidence lies on this issue. Vitamin D is the latest in a long line of “miracle” nutrients that people have turned to in the hope of improving their health. As we’ve learned from copious previous experience, these supplements rarely work as advertised and can sometimes cause harm at the higher doses people often think will be beneficial for them. More isn’t necessarily better when it comes to vitamin D–or most other health care interventions for that matter.
****
Q: Paragraph: Richard Ratcliffe said in Britain that his wife, Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, has been moved to the mental health ward of Iman Khomeini hospital under the control of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. “Hopefully her transfer to hospital means that she is getting treatment and care, despite my distrust of just what pressures can happen behind closed doors. It is unnerving when we don’t know what is going on,” he said. Zaghari-Ratcliffe, 40, was arrested in Iran while traveling with the couple’s young daughter in April 2016 and has been sentenced to five years in prison after being accused of spying, which she and her family vehemently deny. She and her husband recently ended a hunger strike designed to call attention to her plight. British officials have failed to secure her release despite repeated efforts. Her father said he visited the hospital in Tehran Tuesday but was not allowed to see his daughter, who has been out of contact with her family. British officials urged Iranian officials to let her have immediate contact with her family and said her treatment has violated all international norms. Foreign Office minister Andrew Murrison told Parliament the government is worried Zaghari-Ratcliffe may face abuse and be forced to sign a bogus confession. “We are concerned,” he said. “I want to appeal to the better nature of people in Tehran to do what is right for Nazanin.” He conceded, however, that Britain’s options and influence are limited, even though Prime Minister Theresa May has raised it with Iran’s leaders. The Free Nazanin Campaign said in a statement that it does not know what treatment she is receiving or how long she is expected to remain in the hospital. Claim: British-Iranian woman held in Iran moved to psychiatric ward.

A:
A British-Iranian woman imprisoned in Iran has been transferred to a hospital mental health facility, her husband said Wednesday.
****