TASK DEFINITION: Given a paragraph and a claim, classify it this way: If the claim contradicts the evidence present in the paragraph, classify the claim as '0'. If the claim has multiple supporting *AND* contradicting evidences, classify the claim as '1'. If the claim has supporting evidence and the paragraph is in overall favor of the claim, then classify the claim as '2'.
PROBLEM: Paragraph: On March 9 2020, WJLA-TV reporter Sam Sweeney tweeted about a Washington, DC priest’s purported positive coronavirus (COVID-19) diagnosis, adding that the clergy man led Communion services and shook hands with “more than 500” churchgoers:BREAKING: A D.C. priest has Coronavirus. He offered communion and shook hands with more than 500 worshippers last week and on February 24th. All worshippers who visited the Christ Church in Georgetown must self-quarantine. Church is cancelled for the first time since the 1800's— Sam Sweeney (@SweeneyABC) March 9, 2020According to Sweeney’s tweet, the exposure to COVID-19 occurred during services on March 1 and February 24 2020. Sweeney added that churchgoers who attended services on those dates at Christ Church in Georgetown were ordered to “self-quarantine,” and that services there had been canceled for the first time in more than a century.In a reply to a response to that tweet, Sweeney stated:This weekend. The priest who self identified himself in a letter to his congregation.— Sam Sweeney (@SweeneyABC) March 9, 2020The Washington Post reported that the individual Sweeney referenced was Rev. Timothy Cole, the rector at Christ Church in Georgetown. In that article, the outlet indicated 550 congregants were potentially exposed to COVID-19 across multiple services on a single Sunday:A third case of coronavirus in Northern Virginia was announced [March 9 2020], shortly after D.C. officials urged hundreds of Christ Church, Georgetown attendees to self-quarantine because of their exposure to the Rev. Timothy Cole, the church rector, who is the city’s first known coronavirus patient … Cole, who first became sick after returning from a Feb. 22 [2020] conference of Episcopal leaders in Louisville, tested positive for coronavirus Saturday and is quarantined at MedStar Georgetown University Hospital in stable condition. […]Mayor Muriel E. Bowser (D) announced the self-quarantine recommendation at a news conference [on March 9 2020 in the] morning, as authorities try to contain the spread of the virus. It is the first broad self-quarantine order in the Washington region.Cole oversaw multiple services on March 1 [2020], attended by a total of 550 people, the church has said. He provided Communion at the 11:15 a.m. services. Church officials said he appeared healthy that day and had been regularly washing his hands. But he had been ill in late February [2020].There was no immediate estimate of how many people came into close contact with him on the other targeted days.Bowser emphasized self-quarantine was crucial to stop the virus from spreading, adding that officials recognized that “there will be hardships for many people not just in D.C., but in Maryland and Virginia” due to the restriction. The newspaper also reported that Cole engaged in no recent international travel, visiting only the church conference in Kentucky on February 22 2020.CBS News obtained a copy of the email issued to parishioners about Cole’s diagnosis:In an email to parishioners obtained by CBS News, Cole confirmed he has tested positive, and said services were suspended “out of an abundance of caution for the most vulnerable among us.” All services were canceled Sunday, the first time the church has closed since a fire in the 1800s, [Reverend Crystal] Hardin said.“I can now confirm that I am the individual who tested positive for the Coronavirus,” Cole wrote in his email. “First, I want to assure you that I will be okay. I am receiving excellent care and am in good spirits under the circumstances. I will remain quarantined for the next 14 days as will the rest of my family.”CBS further reported that public health officials assessed the exposure risk posed by Cole, concluding that visiting the church was sufficient to warrant quarantine:The D.C. Department of Health said in a statement that it has been in contact with the church and “determined an individual’s visitation to Christ Church Georgetown warrants precautionary measures.” The department recommended “a temporary pause of services” and said it was “conducting an intensive investigation to identify any exposures to COVID-19 that may have occurred at the church,” referring to the virus.Anyone who visited the church under any circumstances or for any reason within a specific date range was affected by the self-quarantine. One outlet provided the dates as between February 28 2020 and March 3 2020; Bowser provided the longer range in a tweet:Visitors to Christ Church, Georgetown Episcopal on Feb 24th, and between Feb 28th and Mar 3rd could've been exposed to COVID-19, and DC Health recommends that anyone who visited on those dates isolate themselves at home for 14 days from the last time they visited the church.— Mayor Muriel Bowser (@MayorBowser) March 9, 2020In the March 9 2020 statement, DC Health clarified self-quarantine instructions:Through DC Health’s investigation, in consultation with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), all visitors to Christ Church, Georgetown Episcopal on February 24th, and between February 28th and March 3rd could have been exposed to the virus that causes COVID-19, and DC Health is recommending that anyone who visited Christ Church, Georgetown Episcopal on those dates isolate themselves at home for 14 days from the last time they visited the church. Isolating at home includes not going to work or school, and not attending any large or public gatherings, or using public transportation or ride-sharing. DC Health may also be reaching out to certain individuals who are more likely to have been exposed with further guidance.Additionally, any person who has visited Christ Church, Georgetown Episcopal on the dates mentioned above, should call DC Health if they develop symptoms, or if they have experienced symptoms of COVID-19 in the 14 days since they visited the church at (202) 576-1117 or call their healthcare providers. Symptoms of COVID-19 may include fever, cough, and/or shortness of breath. If you have any questions and are not symptomatic, you can also email DC Health are [email protected]On the Church’s official website, a link on the homepage led to a statement titled “Church Closure and Coronavirus,” which began:Dear friends in Christ,Many of you have been asking for additional guidance in light of today’s events. At 10:47 p.m., we received the following from DC Health. Please read it carefully and reach out to DC Health with your questions and concerns about their guidance.We will continue to send updates periodically, upon receipt of new information and as warranted. Let us hold one another in prayer and rest assured of God’s presence and grace, which abounds—always.Faithfully,The Clergy and Wardens of Christ Church, GeorgetownImmediately thereafter was the statement from DC Health, and under that, Cole’s email to churchgoers:IMPORTANT UPDATE: CORONAVIRUS IN OUR COMMUNITY Sunday, March 8, 2020Dear friends in Christ,As you are now aware, we have suspended all services and meetings at Christ Church until further notice in response to a presumed positive case of Coronavirus in our community. As we said before, we did not make the decision to close our doors lightly, but out of an abundance of caution for the most vulnerable among us. There is no need to panic. Following sensible precautions provided by the CDC will go a long way towards insuring the good health of our community.I can now confirm that I am the individual who tested positive for the Coronavirus.First, I want to assure you that I will be okay. I am receiving excellent care and am in good spirits under the circumstances. I will remain quarantined for the next 14 days as will the rest of my family.Many of you will want to speak by phone or email; however, at this time, rest is what I need most, and it will be difficult for me to respond. Should you have any situations requiring pastoral care, please do contact the Reverend Mother Crystal Hardin or the Reverend Father John McDuffie. For matters concerning operations of the church, please contact one of the Wardens, Chad Thorley or Rusty Lindner.The obvious question at this point is what you should do. First, please read the information provided on the CDC’s website, linked here. If we are given any firm advice by public health officials, we will pass it to the Christ Church community as soon as possible. In the meantime, we have been asked to let parishioners know that should you experience any symptoms, please contact your healthcare provider.Faithfully,Father TimThe Reverend Timothy A. R. Cole, RectorA tweet reporting a large-scale quarantine mandate and coronavirus (COVID-19) case at a Washington, DC church because of an infected clergyman was accurate. Public health officials said that visitors who went to the church between February 24 and March 3 2020 may have been exposed to COVID-19. Parishioners were instructed to self-quarantine for 14 days, beginning with the date of possible exposure. Claim: A Washington, DC clergyman tested positive for COVID-19, potentially exposing congregants.

SOLUTION: 2

PROBLEM: Paragraph: "Saying Medicaid is a broken system that should not be expanded in Texas, Gov. Rick Perry and the state’s U.S. senators suggested many physicians decline to serve patients insured by the state-federal program. In an April 1, 2013, press release issued in conjunction with their joint Texas Capitol press conference, Perry and Sens. John Cornyn and Ted Cruz, all Republicans, said that nationally, Medicaid expenditures surged from 1990 to 2010, outpacing its caseload. Also, their press release said: ""Only three in 10 Texas doctors are currently accepting new Medicaid patients."" Elaborating in the press conference, Perry said: ""And we fear that number may actually decrease if expansion went through."" The 3-in-10 claim, brought to our attention by analyst Anne Dunkelberg of Austin’s liberal-leaning Center for Public Policy Priorities, sounded familiar, especially after spokespeople for Perry and each senator said by email that it was based on a 2012 survey of Texas physicians by the Texas Medical Association. Preliminary results from the survey figured into one of our fact checks earlier this year. Final survey results are now compiled, Donna Kinney, the association’s lead researcher, told us by phone. Kinney said the results break out to 32 percent of Texas physicians saying they accept all new Medicaid patients and 42 percent declining all new Medicaid patients--with 26 percent limiting their new Medicaid patients. Put another way, the final results indicate that about four in 10 Texas physicians decline all new Medicaid patients while about six in 10 accept at least some new patients. ""They may accept them only in the emergency room,"" Kinney speculated. ""The limits could be anything."" Early this year, we rated the association’s claim that only 31 percent of Texas physicians accept all new Medicaid patients, compared with 67 percent in 2000. The group’s Twitter post about the figure was missing clarification that the figure came from a survey. At the time, though, the Texas Health and Human Services Commission told us that some 67 percent of the state’s physicians had accepted Medicaid at least once during a recent 12-month period. Agency spokeswoman Stephanie Goodman told us by email that 34,290 Texas physicians had claims paid by Medicaid in the fiscal year that ran through August 2011. According to the Texas Medical Board, there were nearly 51,000 practicing physicians in the state at about that time. Goodman said then that she did not have information on the share of physicians not accepting all new Medicaid patients. Brent Annear, a medical association spokesman, guided us to a March 2012 web post by the group stating that 27,917 physicians and medical residents were asked to fill out its online survey and the group fielded 1,139 responses, a 4 percent response rate. The group’s ""preliminary findings"" document says the respondents were a ""representative sample"" of all physicians. The survey reached members and non-members, Kinney told us by email. The key question lists physician reimbursement methods including private insurance, Medicare and Medicaid. ""For patients covered by the following payers,"" the question says, ""does your practice currently (1) accept all new patients, (2) limit new patients that you will accept, or (3) accept no new patients?"" According to the final results, Kinney said, 32 percent said they accept all new Medicaid patients. Some 26 percent said they limit their new Medicaid patients, and 42 percent said they decline all new Medicaid patients, compared with 32 percent in 2010. For our previous check, Annear said by email that physicians have difficulties with Medicaid’s rates and bureaucratic hurdles that delay payments. The rates decreased four times from 2000 to 2011, an association spokeswoman, Pam Udall, said by email, though the state also agreed to a 25-percent boost in funds covering certain physician services provided to children on Medicaid, as part of resolving a lawsuit. We asked Kinney to speculate on why nearly 70 percent of Texas physicians submitted at least one Medicaid claim in a recent year. She said about 60 percent of the state’s physicians--including many specialists in radiology, pathology and anesthesiology--must accept Medicaid to maintain their hospital admitting privileges. Those kinds of doctors would have responded to the survey by saying they limit new Medicaid patients, she said by phone. For a ""real-world"" take, we ran the preliminary survey result by Austin opthalmologist Michelle Berger, the 2013 president of the Travis County Medical Society, which is affiliated with the medical association. Berger said by phone that the society frequently fields inquiries from individuals newly on Medicaid seeking a doctor. Berger said she stopped accepting new Medicaid patients in her practice because related paperwork proved onerous and government payments, which have not kept up with inflation, were not quickly forthcoming. Then again, she said, doctors who do not accept new Medicaid patients may still provide charity care--the result being that some low-income patients are served even though their doctors do not seek payment. Asked to appraise the Texas leaders’ declaration--that only three in 10 physicians accept new Medicaid patients--Kinney said: ""The language does matter. They should have said ‘all’"" new patients. In emails, Perry spokesman Josh Havens and Cornyn spokeswoman Jessica Sandlin each said the leaders’ statement accurately reflected the association survey. Havens added that ""you cannot continue to add context to manipulate the result you want."" Cruz spokeswoman Catherine Frazier, also standing by the claim, said by email that the point is that Medicaid is a broken system. Our ruling Perry said only three in 10 Texas doctors currently accept new Medicaid patients. In a recent year, some 67 percent of Texas physicians submitted at least one Medicaid claim. More recently, 42 percent of the state’s physicians responding to a 2012 survey said they refuse all new Medicaid patients. Then again, 32 percent said they accept all new Medicaid patients and 26 percent said they limit such patients--signaling that 58 percent of physicians accept at least some new Medicaid patients. By not specifying that the cited ""three in 10"" reflects only doctors who accept all new Medicaid patients, Perry’s statement falls off target by nearly 30 percent. Still, it has en element of truth." Claim: Only three in 10 Texas doctors are currently accepting new Medicaid patients.

SOLUTION: 0

PROBLEM: Paragraph: "On May 14, 2013, a federal agency recommended reducing the threshold for evidence of drunken driving from a blood-alcohol concentration of 0.08 to 0.05. That means having a glass of wine at dinner might make a person drunk, a spokesman for the Tavern League of Wisconsin told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel the same day. Under a BAC standard of 0.05, a person could get nailed for DUI after one drink? Tavern League’s evidence The statement was made by Scott Stenger, a Madison lobbyist whose clients include the tavern league. He told us he based his claim on news articles about the 0.05 recommendation, including a report from the Journal Sentinel and The Associated Press, and a chart on blood-alcohol concentration from the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission. The news covered the recommendation by the National Transportation Safety Board, which investigates transportation accidents and makes recommendations based on its findings. The board said states should cut the current blood-alcohol level for evidence of intoxication as part of a series of ideas aimed at reducing alcohol-related highway deaths. In its report, the Associated Press said 0.05 is ""about one drink for a woman weighing less than 120 pounds,"" and that a drink is defined as 12 ounces of beer, 4 ounces of wine, or 1 ounce of 80-proof alcohol ""in most studies."" Meanwhile, the Texas agency chart that Stenger cited says its BAC data comes from another federal body, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which works to prevent highway crashes. That data says essentially what Stenger and AP did: A 100-pound woman could reach 0.05 after one drink. (Incidentally, both the AP and the chart used by the Texas agency said a 160-pound man could reach 0.05 after consuming two drinks in one hour.) So, there’s evidence that a limited group of drinkers -- women weighing under 120 pounds -- could be legally drunk after one drink, if the standard for drunken driving were reduced to a blood-alcohol level of 0.05. What other evidence is out there? BAC calculators We checked three online calculators that provide blood-alcohol concentration estimates based on various factors, including gender and weight. They generally found a BAC of less than 0.05 for a 100-pound woman consuming one drink. The calculator at the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (which also has a smartphone app), says the BAC would be 0.03. A more detailed calculator from the University of Notre Dame’s Office of Alcohol and Drug Education says the BAC would be 0.04 for a 5-ounce glass of wine, if the wine is red and 12.5 percent alcohol. And the calculator at Central Connecticut State University’s Office of Alcohol and Drug Education says the BAC would be 0.05 after a 5-ounce glass of table wine. So, why do the blood-alcohol concentration figures vary? Well, as we noted, all of the figures are estimates. The Wisconsin DOT also points out that besides gender, weight and the amount of alcohol consumed, other factors are in play. Your BAC will be higher if you drink faster or drink on an empty stomach. Women reach higher BACs faster because they have less water in their bodies and more adipose tissue (fat), which is not easily penetrated by alcohol. Jan Grebel, a chemical test supervisor for the DOT, told us about another factor: If you drink frequently, your liver can break down alcohol more efficiently, but if you don’t, your BAC would be higher after even one drink. Grebel quoted to us from a chart she utilizes when testifying in court in drunken driving cases. She said the chart estimates the BAC at 0.047 -- nearly 0.05 -- for a 100-pound woman after one drink. But Grebel said that would be the maximum BAC in that instance. Most people would not reach 0.05 after one drink, she said. Our rating The Tavern League of Wisconsin said a proposal to make 0.05 the standard for drunken driving would mean that having a glass of wine at dinner could make a person drunk. The statement is accurate, in that it’s possible an individual could reach 0.05 after one drink. But it needs additional information, namely that the situation would apply only in a small number of instances and would depend on other factors, such as drinking on an empty stomach." Claim: A 0.05 standard for drunken driving means having a glass of wine at dinner could make a person drunk.

SOLUTION:
2