Given a paragraph, generate a claim that is supported by the given paragraph. 1) The claim must contain information from within the paragraph. 2) A sentence within the paragraph can be used as a claim. 3) The claim should not have contradictions within the paragraph. 4) The claim should be at most one sentence long.

The company has since mid-March launched three coronavirus tests, including an antibody test crucial in identifying immunity among people and one that can deliver results within minutes, which was heralded as a game changer by President Donald Trump. Shares of the company were up 6% at $96.48 in morning trading. Despite the strong uptake in coronavirus testing, the cancellation of non-essential surgeries and restrictions on people’s movement are expected to severely crimp sales of its medical devices and other lab tests, which contribute to more than half of total quarterly revenue. “(The second quarter) will likely be our toughest quarter in the year, especially for our core lab business, our cardio and neuro businesses,” Chief Executive Officer Robert Ford said on a post-earnings call. The company suspended its full-year forecast due to the uncertainty caused by the health crisis and said it expects to provide an update in the second half of the year. Abbott projected a recovery in elective procedures and testing volumes globally from the third quarter and said it was seeing signs of stabilization in China and areas where the outbreak has begun to abate. “We’re all hoping for a fast recovery here, but if it takes longer, we’ll have strong demand for testing and that will continue to help buffer the impact,” Ford said. Elective procedure declines were at the core of Johnson & Johnson’s (JNJ.N) decision to cut 2020 forecasts on Tuesday, with recovery expected in the second half of the year. Abbott beat first-quarter earnings expectations as shelter-in-place restrictions imposed by U.S. states boosted demand for nutrition products for children such as PediaSure, lifting sales in the unit by 6.3% to $1.90 billion. Results were also boosted by a strong flu season before the outbreak that helped minimize testing declines and on softer-than-expected COVID-19 impact across businesses, said J.P. Morgan analyst Robbie Marcus. Sales in the diagnostics unit fell nearly 1% to $1.83 billion, while demand for its FreeStyle Libre diabetes monitoring device remained strong fueled by expanded insurance coverage in Japan. Sales of the device surged 60% to over $600 million. Excluding items, the company earned 65 cents per share, beating expectation of 58 cents. Net sales of $7.73 billion also topped estimates of $7.34 billion.
Coronavirus test ramp-up to help Abbott weather 'toughest quarter'.

The story does not mention the costs of screening or follow-up tests or treatment – to the individual or, collectively, to society. Those costs are significant. This story uses several different statistics and expert perspectives to explain what the researchers found in their examination of the effects of mammography screening. It not only include the relative risk reduction (10 percent) and an absolute risk reduction statistic (among women in their 50s, a decade of screening would boost the likelihood of avoiding a fatal breast cancer from 995.6 out of 1,000 to 996 out of 1,000), but it also offered comments from different experts about how they would personally value effects of that size. The story notes that screening mammography exposes women to false alarms scares as well as the risks and harms of treating tumors that actually would not have become life-threatening. This story explains how this study is different from earlier research on mammography. It points out both advantages of the study methods (comparing women in regions with screening to those without as Norway rolled out a national program over a 9 year period) and limitations (an observational study like this is not as powerful as a randomized trial, and the study might have found more benefits to screening if it had lasted longer). The story also noted the uncertainty in the numbers the researchers reported and that the real differences might be different. The story does not exaggerate the risk of breast cancer or the need to be screened for it. The story includes comments from several independent sources offering a variety of perspectives. It does not mention that the study was funded by the Cancer Registry of Norway and the Research Council of Norway. The story notes that improved treatments appear to have reduced the breast cancer death rate even among women who did not have regular screening mammograms. Not being screened was clearly acknowledged as an alternative, something not all competing stories explicitly addressed. The availability of mammography screening is not at issue. This story does point out that the women who were screened in Norway had access to special treatment teams. And it noted that these treatments are available at “many major medical centers in the United States.”  Mammography is not new, but this story does a good job of explaining what is new about the way these researchers examined the effects of screening. The story includes comments from several sources and does not appear to rely on a news release.
Mammogramsâ€™ Value in Cancer Fight at Issue

In the summer of 2020, readers asked Snopes to examine the accuracy of claims that, if and when a COVID-19 coronavirus vaccine emerges, individual states could, in principle, be authorized to fine or even jail those who refused to take it. The inquiries stemmed from an Aug. 7, 2020, article published by KGTV in San Diego, California, which bore the headline “States Have Authority to Fine or Jail People Who Refuse Coronavirus Vaccine, Attorney Says.” The attorney in question was Dov Fox, a law professor and director of the Center for Health Law Policy and Bioethics at the University of San Diego. The article began: As drugmakers race to develop a vaccine against the coronavirus, several legal questions are emerging: could the government require people to get it? Could people who refuse to roll up their sleeves get banned from stores or lose their jobs? The short answer is yes, according to Dov Fox, a law professor and the director of the Center for Health Law Policy and Bioethics at the University of San Diego. “States can compel vaccinations in more or less intrusive ways,” he said in an interview. “They can limit access to schools or services or jobs if people don’t get vaccinated. They could force them to pay a fine or even lock them up in jail.” Fox noted authorities in the United States have never attempted to jail people for refusing to vaccinate, but other countries like France have adopted the aggressive tactic. The legal precedent dates back to 1905. In a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case, Jacobson v. Massachusetts, the court ruled Massachusetts had the authority to fine people who refused vaccinations for smallpox. The interview with Fox was republished by WMAR and on the Newsbreak website. Fox’s assessment was accurate. The 1905 Supreme Court decision he highlighted set a precedent for subsequent court rulings that have reaffirmed, over the ensuing century, that state and local authorities can, in principle, impose penalties — including criminal sanctions — upon individuals who refuse to undergo mandatory vaccinations. In February 1902, the Board of Health in Cambridge, Massachusetts, introduced a regulation requiring that any resident who had not been vaccinated against smallpox in the previous five years must be vaccinated or revaccinated. Massachusetts state law imposed a fine of $5 for anyone over the age of 21 years old who was eligible to receive the vaccine but refused. In July of that year, Henning Jacobson, a Swedish immigrant and Lutheran pastor aged in his 40s, refused to be vaccinated and was arrested and charged with violating the state’s compulsory vaccination law. He was tried and convicted and fined $5. Jacobson challenged his conviction, but the Massachusetts Supreme Court upheld it, and he took his case to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1904. According to a contemporary news report, Jacobson’s legal challenges were funded by the Anti-Compulsory Vaccination Society. In February 1905, the court issued its decision, upholding the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision and ruling that the state law that Jacobson was found to have violated was not in breach of his constitutional rights. His conviction was upheld. In the majority opinion, Justice John Marshall Harlan summarized some of the main issues at stake: […] The defendant [Jacobson] insists that his liberty is invaded when the State subjects him to fine or imprisonment for neglecting or refusing to submit to vaccination; that a compulsory vaccination law is unreasonable, arbitrary and oppressive, and, therefore, hostile to the inherent right of every freeman to care for his own body and health in such way as to him seems best; and that the execution of such a law against one who objects to vaccination, no matter for what reason, is nothing short of an assault upon his person. But the liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States to every person within its jurisdiction does not import an absolute right in each person to be, at all times and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint. There are manifold restraints to which every person is necessarily subject for the common good. On any other basis organized society could not exist with safety to its members. Society based on the rule that each one is a law unto himself would soon be confronted with disorder and anarchy…’ ‘Police Power’ The Jacobson decision was based in part on a long-standing principle known as the “police power” doctrine, which gives a state the authority to, in certain circumstances and within certain parameters, limit the individual rights of those living within its jurisdiction in order to protect the common good or preserve safety. It applies particularly to actions or behaviors that would not ordinarily be regarded as criminal or aberrant. For example, peacefully walking down a public street after dark is almost always regarded as acceptable, non-criminal behavior and fully in keeping with a person’s constitutionally enshrined individual liberty. However, in specific circumstances — for example where rioting in a particular city or neighborhood means state or local authorities decide the common good is best served by imposing a curfew — walking down a public street after dark, although not inherently criminal or dangerous to others, can lawfully be prohibited in a specific location for a defined period of time, and those who insist on doing it can lawfully be subjected to criminal penalties. One academic paper summarized the police power principle as follows: “The doctrine of state ‘police power’ was adopted in early colonial America from firmly established English common law principles mandating the limitation of private rights when needed for the preservation of the common good. It was one of the powers reserved by the states with the adoption of the federal Constitution and was limited only by the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause — which mandates preeminence of federal law in matters delegated to the federal government — and the individual rights protected in the subsequent Amendments. The application of police power has traditionally implied a capacity to (1) promote the public health, morals, or safety, and the general well-being of the community; (2) enact and enforce laws for the promotion of the general welfare; (3) regulate private rights in the public interest; and (4) extend measures to all great public needs.” The state police power doctrine is the reason why mandatory quarantine and isolation orders, curfews, and indeed mandatory vaccination programs, are rarely successfully challenged in the courts. Just as the Constitution’s protection of individual liberties is not absolute, limits also exist on the authority of a state to prohibit or compel an individual’s actions. In the case of mandatory vaccination, the Supreme Court outlined some of those issues in its opinion in the Jacobson case, writing: A statute requiring the vaccination of all the inhabitants of a State at a specified time irrespective of the presence of smallpox and without regard to individual conditions of health, or a set of rules and regulations made by the legislature itself, which must necessarily be more or less inelastic, would be far less just than this statute which delegates discretion to local public officials […]. Arbitrary action by the Board of Health, ‘with evil mind,’ might result in a denial of due process of law. If they picked out one class of persons arbitrarily for immediate vaccination, while indefinitely postponing action toward all others, or if they otherwise abused their discretion their action might be in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment […] The precedent set by the Supreme Court in the Jacobson ruling persists to the present day. In 2015, almost 110 years later, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit explicitly cited the case when affirming the constitutionality of a New York state law that makes vaccination mandatory for public school students. The appeals court opinion stated: “Plaintiffs argue that New York’s mandatory vaccination requirement violates substantive due process. This argument is foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts […].” In another landmark decision in 1922, the Supreme Court wrote that the Jacobson ruling had “settled that it is within the police power of a State to provide for compulsory vaccination.”

Individual U.S. states would be legally authorized to impose criminal penalties on individuals who refused to undergo a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination.