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 story does not talk about costs, which was disappointing. The costs of intensive medical therapy can easily be identified. Using an online pharmacy we calculated the costs to be about $1,500 to $2,000 annually for medical therapy, using generic drugs. Using the Health Care Blue Book, we found the average cost of coronary artery bypass sugery and hospitalization to be about $62,000. We think that this is important information for readers that should have been included. The quantification here was presented in such a way to make it clear to readers that there was no significant benefit found to surgical intervention, which is a fair conclusion to draw from the study. The story says, “In the Stich study, 41% of patients assigned to treatment with drugs alone died during the follow-up period, which averaged five years. That compared with a mortality rate of 36% among patients who received bypass surgery plus medication. Although the relative reduction in risk of death was 14%, the result didn’t meet tests for statistical significance, meaning it could have resulted from chance alone.” That’s a great way to describe the lack of statistical significance. It would have been even more powerful to show readers the actual number of patients who died in each group. The story provides great information about the study itself and about the overall state of the evidence supporting heart surgery. “How best to treat these patients has been fraught with uncertainty,” is one of the more notable phrases from the story. It also says, “Many patients aren’t evaluated for heart surgery to treat diseased arteries because they don’t suffer classic chest pain or because doctors worry that hearts weakened by heart failure won’t benefit from the procedure. Other doctors recommend immediate bypass surgery despite a lack of vigorous studies to support that strategy.” The story does not engage in disease-mongering and takes a very careful approach to describing the types of patients who would be affected by this study’s results. We also like the way they provided snapshots of patients who were in both arms of the study — surgery and non-surgery — at the end of the story, making it clear, as the study did, that both routes can be equally successful. The story brings in some strong independent voices who help make sense of this complicated study: James Fang, a cardiologist at University Hospitals Case Medical Center in Cleveland, who wrote an editorial accompanying the study, Raymond Gibbons, a cardiologist at the Mayo Clinic, and Clyde Yancy, chief of cardiology at Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine. Rarely do you see a story that spends as much time with independent experts as it does with the authors of the study. The story does a great job showing how the standard interventions for heart disease stacked up against each other in this study. We wish that some mention had been made of diet and exercise and that at least a sentence had been included about whether there might be differences in outcomes seen as a result of different medication patterns. The story doesn’t make it clear what exactly the patients were taking. The story makes it clear that the range of treatments studied by the authors are widely available. The story makes it clear that there is a great need for more evidence in this field and that this study will be surprising to many clinicians because of a long-held assumption that surgery is the superior option. tudies published in the early 1990s supported the view that bypass surgery provided a better long term outcome. The story does not rely on a news release. Claim: More Options Before Bypass Surgery, Study Finds
Example Output: The piece gave readers some powerful information to help them sort through the range of factors that should be considered for any medical intervention. The only weakness our reviewers found with the story is the lack of comment about cost. Too often stories present medical options as false choices of best versus worst. They don’t take into consideration the very real differences between patients’ medical histories, diagnoses and expectations. This story should be applauded for giving readers a clear understanding of the complexities of shared decision-making between providers and patients. As noted by one of the experts quoted in the story, “You don’t have a good therapy and a bad therapy, you have a choice.” This is a message that the story gets across very well and is an important one for readers.

Example Input: Paragraph: "The story includes the cost of this test $1,625 and mentions that insurance companies currently don’t cover the cost of the new genetic test for breast cancer. The test manufacturer CEO’s speculation that insurance companies will eventually cover the test because it’s easy to perform and ""any doctor can order the test"" is an inappropriate rationale for any screening, especially when such screening may place a woman at risk for unnecessary surgery or other treatments. It is not clear how this test improves on these current practice as there was no evidence presented about it. The story appropriately expresses caution when presenting the value of this new test to predict a woman’s lifetime risk of developing cancer. There is a wide range of experts interviewed, all of whom express concern about the current available evidence for the predictive value of this test. Most experts advise against women taking this test, and the American Cancer Society does not promote the test. The story provides appropriate caveats for women who are considering this test. Namely, a lower than average score might suggest a woman could forgo screening. Women with a higher than average risk score could experience unnecessary anxiety and possibly choose treatments they do not need (such as prophylactic mastectomy). The story does not provide any evidence about the test itself (despite alluding to it). The story does mention that this test has not been validated in an external review, so any evidence would be from company-sponsored studies. Additionally, peer-reviewed studies need to be done to determine the best course of prevention if a woman chooses to take the test and discovers she is at higher risk of developing breast cancer. Because the story raised appropriate questions about the quality of the evidence, we give this a satisfactory score. The story lists the annual incidence of new breast cancers and mortality rate. The story is tempered in reporting about a new genetic test which may or may not be another option for women looking to assess their risk. The story mentions that knowing individual risk may inform a woman’s decision whether to increase surveillance and/or take chemoprevention medication, such as tamoxifen. Several leading breast cancer researchers, a member of the American Cancer Society and a spokesperson for the FDA are interviewed for this story. These interviewees do not have a vested interest in this test–unlike Decode’s chief executive, who is also interviewed, mainly promoting his company’s product. Researchers help educate the reader about a new test may have many more cons than pros. The story does note, via a patient advocate, that some women may still go ahead with the test if they feel it may help guide them in future breast cancer prevention efforts. The story mentions current prevention guidelines for women who are considered at higher than average risk of developing breast cancer. This includes additional surveillance with MRI and mammography, chemoprevention and adopting a healthier lifestyle, namely reducing alcohol consumption and lowering body fat. However, the evidence of survival benefit for lifestyle and screening is fairly limited. Most of recent decrease in breast cancer  mortality is attributed to advances in treatment not necessarily screening. Currently, breast cancer risk for women who do not carry the BRAC1/2 genes is determined via population-based calculators such as the Gail Risk Model. This tool provides an estimated 5-year risk and is only validated for Caucasian women, so a well-validated, individualized predictive test would, in theory, be useful for some women. The test discussed in this story has not been studied long enough, nor have results of company studies been subjected to an external review. The focus of the story is a new, widely available genetic test. The story says that any doctor can order this test to assess a woman’s risk of developing of developing one of the more common forms of breast cancer. The story notes that the FDA does not regulate this or similar types of predictive genetic tests, and there are questions about the validity of tests that have not been subjected to external review. The story notes that there are other genetic tests, but this is one of the first for breast cancer for women who do not carry the BRCA1/2 gene. The story does not mention that there are several other risk calculators to estimate a women’s risk. The story does not rely on the Decode Genetics press release. There is independent reporting and a balanced review of this new genetic test." Claim: Firm says test judges risk for common breast cancers
Example Output: "The focus of the story is a newly available genetic test to assess a woman’s risk of developing of developing one of the more common forms of breast cancer. The story does not provide any evidence about the test itself (despite alluding to it). The story does mention that this test has not been validated in an external review, so any evidence would be from company-sponsored studies. The story notes that the FDA does not regulate this or similar types of predictive genetic tests, and there is concern about the validity of such tests that have not been subjected to external review. The test manufacturer CEO’s speculation that insurance companies will eventually cover the test because it’s easy to perform and ""any doctor can order the test"" is an inappropriate rationale for any screening, especially when such screening may place a woman at risk for unnecessary surgery or other treatments. The story mentions current prevention guidelines for women who are considered higher than average risk of developing breast cancer. This includes additional surveillance with MRI and mammography, chemoprevention and adopting a healthier lifestyle, namely reducing alcohol consumption and lowering body fat. However,the evidence of survival benefit for lifestyle and screening is fairly limited. Most of recent decrease in breast cancer mortality is attributed to advances in treatment not necessarily screening. Currently, breast cancer risk for women who do not carry the BRAC1/2 genes is determined via population-based calculators such as the Gail Risk Model. This tool provides an estimated 5-year risk and is only validated for Caucasian women, so a well-validated, individualized predictive test would, in theory, be useful for some women. It is not clear how the new genetic test improves on this current practice, as there was no evidence presented. Researchers and clinicians interviewed help educate the reader about a new test may have many more cons than pros. The story does note, via a patient advocate, that some women may still go ahead with the test if they feel it may help guide them in future breast cancer prevention efforts."

Example Input: Paragraph: On March 18, less than 10 days later, Khan died at an isolation center for coronavirus patients in the northwestern city of Mardan. He died from COVID-19, the day his test results came back positive. Khan was Pakistan’s first fatality from a disease that is rapidly spreading through the country of 220 million people. The virus has already infected over 317,000 people worldwide, and killed more than 13,000. The number of confirmed cases in Pakistan has soared to more than 750 from 22 last week, largely driven by a wave of pilgrims returning from Iran who Pakistani authorities said were   inadequately tested and improperly isolated. At least four people have died from the disease in Pakistan in the past week. Thousands of people now need to undergo the slow process of retesting, and authorities fear the number of cases could surge in coming days. Health experts say there is a lack of public awareness in Pakistan about the virus and that the cash-strapped government is ill-prepared to tackle its spread. A shortage of quarantine facilities and testing labs have also hampered efforts to effectively deal with high-risk cases. In Sindh, Pakistan’s hardest-hit province, the situation is already grim, said Dr. Naseem Salahuddin, the head of department for infectious diseases at Indus Hospital in Karachi. She said that the few hospitals equipped to handle COVID-19 cases in Karachi are either close to capacity or have shut their doors because they can’t handle the influx of suspected cases. “We’re likely to have a very big outbreak no matter what we do now,” she said. “And we will not be equipped to handle the numbers. There will be breakdowns at many levels.” Better border controls and quarantine measures should have been instituted a lot earlier, she said. “I think the cat’s now out of the bag.”  Zafar Mirza, Pakistan’s health minister, who said last week that some of Pakistan’s quarantine facilities had not been “ideal”, did not respond to Reuters’ requests for comment. The provincial health minister in Khan’s home province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa also did not respond to a request for comment. Reuters interviewed three doctors involved in the case, as well as four people from Khan’s village, and reviewed medical case notes detailing his travel history. Together, they provide a picture of Khan’s last days, and illustrate why the South Asian nation is rapidly becoming the latest hotbed of the fast-spreading disease. In late February, Khan flew to Saudi Arabia to visit the holy city of Mecca for Umrah, a religious pilgrimage performed by millions of Muslims from across the world each year. Khan entered the country just before it shut its borders to Umrah pilgrims, in a bid to stem the spread of COVID-19. Khan was in Saudi Arabia for two to three weeks, according to the doctors handling his case and an acquaintance from his village. (GRAPHIC: Pakistan’s first fatality of COVID-19 may have endangered thousands  - here)  Medical case notes, provided by one of Khan’s doctors, show that he departed from the kingdom’s Jeddah International Airport on March 8 via flight number PK736, which landed the following day at Peshawar International Airport, in northwest Pakistan. At least two people who knew Khan said he was already ill when he got on the plane and needed assistance on arrival in Pakistan. Despite Pakistan having identified its first confirmed cases of COVID-19 two weeks prior, the case notes state Khan was only asked to fill out a form and did not undergo a medical screening at the Peshawar airport. Khan did not mention any illness, and he would have escaped detection anyway if he had taken fever suppressors, said a Peshawar airport official who asked not to be named. Authorities are also scrambling to trace dozens of other passengers on flight PK736 that night, as well as airport staff who assisted Khan. Khan first visited a district hospital close to his village on March 16, complaining of cough, fever and breathing issues. The doctor diagnosed him as a potential COVID-19 patient and had him tested for the virus. The sample was sent to Islamabad for testing, according to the case notes reviewed by Reuters. While it is unclear if doctors could have forced Khan into quarantine, the case notes indicate he refused to be isolated. Instead, he went home, where he lived with his wife, three sons, two daughters-in-law, three daughters and four grandchildren. Hospital officials say Khan returned on March 17, when his symptoms intensified. On March 18, test results confirmed he was infected with COVID-19, and he was moved to an isolation center, where he died the same day. It is the events before his death, though, that have worried medical officials and alarmed many residents of his village. On March 9, Khan was greeted with a mass gathering in his village, as is traditional in Pakistan when someone returns from Umrah. According to local authorities, some 2,000 people were in attendance at the lunch – most of whom embraced Khan. Khan also ran a popular “medical clinic” in his village – though he wasn’t a qualified doctor, say local health officials. As is the case in many rural areas of Pakistan, people with just rudimentary medical knowledge often run such dispensaries to treat patients with ailments like fevers and colds, despite not having any qualifications. Khan had not resumed his practice on returning to Pakistan, but his sons ran it for him while he stayed at home in “self-quarantine,” health officials from the village told Reuters. However, they added, the “self-quarantine” involved his sons staying in the same room as him. The sons in turn also tended to dozens of patients at their father’s clinic during that period. Reuters was unable to speak with anyone in Khan’s family. There is mass panic in the village, local residents told Reuters via phone, adding that no one had taken the coronavirus threat seriously prior to this. “There are hundreds of people believed to have been infected but they are hiding and reluctant to go to hospital,” said Liaqat Ali Shah, a local social worker, adding that villagers feared being ostracized by the community and shunned by healthcare workers. The village, Union Council Mangah, was locked down following Khan’s death, according to an official directive from authorities. A complete lockdown was ordered “with immediate effect and there shall be no entry and no exit,” the order seen by Reuters read. The village of about 7,000 people, has been declared a mass quarantine zone, according to the provincial government, and testing has begun. But residents of Mangah say none of the officials surveying the area have testing kits with them. A medical worker on the ground said test kits were limited so they couldn’t test everyone and were only testing patients displaying symptoms. “There’s a virtual lockdown in the village and movement is restricted,” a school teacher in the village, told Reuters via phone. Despite this, at least four people showing symptoms, including two members of Khan’s family, are now missing and have gone underground, health officials told Reuters. All four had tested positive for COVID-19, the officials said. Claim: Pakistan's first coronavirus death exposes nation's vulnerability.
Example Output:
When Saadat Khan, 50, returned to Pakistan on March 9 from a pilgrimage to Saudi Arabia, he was greeted in his village with a rousing welcome and a grand feast attended by more than 2,000 people, many of whom embraced him warmly.