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'.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: The story does discuss costs, but the framing is problematic. The story, based on a conversation with one source, the study’s lead investigator, says, “It’s difficult at this point to predict costs. However, he expects costs will not approach those for Provenge, the pricey treatment vaccine for prostate cancer approved by the FDA in 2010. Provenge costs $93,000 for the one-month, three-dose treatment. Medicare covers it.” This tells readers that, no matter what the drug costs, Medicare likely will cover it. We appreciate the effort to bring cost information into the story, but this type of information is misleading. The story does explain that only one patient remains cancer free following the study. It then details how for most of the patients cancer continued to progress after 2 months. It says that the median overall survival in both the breast cancer and ovarian cancer patients was less than 16 months. But the story is framed in such a way to highlight the one potentially positive outcome of the study and to downplay the negative. We read more sooner about the one patient who may have responded well to the vaccine than we do about the 25 other patients who did not. The story mentions side effects in a satisfactory way. Technically, the story provides readers with much of the information they would need to assess the validity of the study, but it comes out in bits and pieces. For example, we only find out near the end of the story that “The woman, who remains disease-free, had a previous treatment with a different treatment vaccine. ‘That might have primed her immune system,’ Gulley speculates. She also had only one regimen of chemotherapy, perhaps keeping her immune system stronger.” This casts much doubt on the study’s design, and it would have been nice to have seen some outside expertise brought in to either discuss those design problems or to torpedo the story altogether. Again, the story deserves high marks for being very specific in the lead and throughout the story. It says, that the vaccine is “for breast and ovarian cancer that has spread to other parts of the body” in the lead and later details the particular circumstances of the study cohort. It says, “The patients had already undergone a variety of treatments but the cancer was progressing. Twenty one of the 26 had undergone three or more chemotherapy regimens.” This is the root of the story’s main shortcoming. Almost all of the information in the story comes from one source: Dr. James Gulley, who oversaw the study. Gulley is quite enthusiastic about this vaccine, despite the evidence, and the story needed more perspectives to put this vaccine into a broader context. At the very end, there are a few comments from Dr. Vincent K. Tuohy, who also is working on a breast cancer vaccine. Because of his competing research, he seems to have a conflict, but even putting that aside, his comments were not used to their best effect. There was no comparison in the story to existing alternatives. The median survival, for example, is presented without the context of how long these patients might have lived had they been undergoing standard chemotherapy and radiation treatments. We give high marks to the story for saying right in the lead that the findings are from “a preliminary study in 26 patients.” That tells readers both that the findings need to be interpreted with caution and that the treatment is not available to most people. The concept of vaccines for breast/ovarian cancer is indeed novel, and the story acknowledges that other vaccines are being studied. The story does not rely on a news release. Claim: Study: Vaccine for Breast, Ovarian Cancer Has Potential
[EX A]: 2

[EX Q]: Paragraph: "As the spread of coronavirus has fed fears of illness, it has also spurred fears of mass quarantines. And looking at other countries that have been hit hard by the virus, including China and Italy, it’s not an idle question. On March 12, a reader sent us a comment from a website called Stop Mandatory Vaccination, run by a group that opposes bills to curb exemptions for vaccinations. (Here’s some background on the anti-vaccine movement.) The website said in part, ""The CDC can detain anyone with a fever — indefinitely. … Vaccination (is) a way people could get out of detention."" Similar comments on social media soon prompted high-level debunkings. Late on March 15, the National Security Council took to Twitter to knock down rumors about a national quarantine: ""Text message rumors of a national #quarantine are FAKE. There is no national lockdown. @CDCgov has and will continue to post the latest guidance on #COVID19. #coronavirus."" Text message rumors of a national #quarantine are FAKE. There is no national lockdown. @CDCgov has and will continue to post the latest guidance on #COVID19. #coronavirus Quarantines are real, but there’s a lot of misinformation floating around about the details. Here, we’ll attempt to clarify what’s accurate, and what’s not, about quarantines. (An inquiry to Stop Mandatory Vaccination was not returned.) There are two related terms that address this phenomenon: quarantine and isolation. ""Isolation"" separates people with a confirmed case of a communicable disease from people who are not sick. ""Quarantine"" separates and restricts the movement of people who were exposed to a contagious disease to see if they become sick. The last federal quarantine prior to the coronavirus outbreak came in the early 1960s, when officials were concerned about a smallpox outbreak. It’s been a century — back to the 1918-19 ""Spanish flu"" pandemic — since large-scale isolations and quarantines were last enforced. Federal quarantine power stems from Section 361 of the Public Health Service Act, which authorizes the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to take measures to prevent the entry and spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries and between states. Federal regulations revised in 2017 allow the CDC ""to detain, medically examine, and release persons arriving into the United States and traveling between states who are suspected of carrying"" certain communicable diseases. (Here’s what a sample quarantine order looks like.) Those powers are carried out with help from other federal agencies, such as Customs and Border Protection and the Coast Guard. This federal government has exercised this power recently with travelers returning from locations where coronavirus has been spreading, based on presidential proclamations like this one. So far we’ve been referring to federal quarantines. But most quarantine power actually resides with state and local governments, as well as tribal law on tribal lands. That’s because federal quarantine powers are limited to persons entering the United States from elsewhere. By contrast, states and localities enforce those powers within their own borders ""CDC officials are ‘preparing as if (the new coronavirus) is the next pandemic,’ but in reality, the laboring oar falls to state and local health departments,"" Polly J. Price, a professor of law and global health at Emory University, has written in the Atlantic. So the assertion we’re checking in this article, by focusing on CDC, misses a lot of where the action is: state and local governments. Historically, forcible quarantines have been rare, and they require a court order. Most of the time, experts said, people who are infected are released on their own recognizance with a promise to self-quarantine. There’s judicial precedent for quarantine powers dating back to the early 1800s, but subsequent case law has required a degree of due process, especially given that a quarantine, unlike an arrest, involves the detention of someone who is not suspected of a crime. Past cases ""suggest that there are important limits on the ability of the U.S. and state and local governments when it comes to some types of public health action,"" said David Schultz, a professor of political science and legal studies at Hamline University. The government has to show real harm, as well as that people get due process and a chance to appeal. Becoming subject to forcible quarantines isn’t just a question of having a particular germ; it also requires a strong likelihood that you will spread it to other people. ""Since most people can take precautions, this typically only happens in the case of person who can’t stay away from other people,"" such as people who have a severe mental illness, said Wendy K. Mariner, a professor of health law at the Boston University School of Public Health. What if you refuse a mandatory order? Practical consequences for such an action are tricky. While fines and incarceration are allowed, no public health expert today recommends jailing a person unwilling to quarantine, because they would be introducing a contagion into a confined population. ""The likelier answer is hospitals with secure wards,"" Mariner said. Not any fever gets you quarantined, contrary to the assertion we’re checking. The government ""would have to have good evidence that the individual was exposed to COVID-19"" to impose a quarantine, said Lawrence O. Gostin, faculty director of Georgetown University's O'Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law. ""‘Fever’ is too broad a definition,"" Mariner agreed. In addition to coronavirus, the CDC is able to quarantine only for the following diseases: cholera, diphtheria, infectious tuberculosis, plague, smallpox, yellow fever, viral hemorrhagic fever, SARS and pandemic flu. It’s an exaggeration to say quarantine is ""indefinite"" detention by the government, especially given what we know so far about the course of coronavirus disease. First, as we noted, quarantine is usually self-regulated. And for those instances when it’s not, such as when an individual is uncooperative, the person is able to leave quarantine when they are no longer contagious. Vaccination doesn’t get you out of quarantine. Typically, vaccinations aren’t cures; they’re preventive measures. In any case, it’s moot for coronavirus, because there is no vaccine yet. Claims on the internet said ""the CDC can detain anyone with a fever — indefinitely. … Vaccination (is) a way people could get out of detention."" The CDC does have the power to isolate people with certain infectious diseases and quarantine those who had contact with an infected person. But this claim is wrong or misleading about many of the details. Most quarantine decisions will be up to states and localities, rather than the CDC. People can’t be quarantined for just having a fever; they have to be shown to have been exposed to a specific set of diseases. Most quarantines are done voluntarily, not by force of the state. And vaccination is not a ticket out of quarantine." Claim: “The CDC can detain anyone with a fever — indefinitely. … Vaccination (is) a way people could get out of detention.”
[EX A]: 0

[EX Q]: Paragraph: The appellate court ruling puts a hold on the ban that was announced by New York state’s Democratic Governor Andrew Cuomo last month in response to widespread growing concern about the rising use of e-cigarettes among teens and a nationwide spate of lung illnesses. The ban, which was due to start on Friday, will remain on ice until at least Oct. 18 when the Supreme Court in Albany is scheduled to hear the case brought by industry trade group Vapor Technology Association arguing for a preliminary injunction on the ban. “We are very pleased with the New York State Appellate Division’s decision, which acknowledges the strength of our claims about the State’s executive overreach, and which preserves the ability of hundreds of small businesses to remain open and continue to serve their adult customers,” Tony Abboud, executive director of the association said in an emailed statement. New York Health Commissioner Howard Zucker said he remained confident the ban would eventually be enforced. “Make no mistake: this is a public health emergency that demands immediate action to help ensure the wellbeing of our children, and we’re confident that once the court hears our argument they will agree,” Zucker said in a statement. A handful of states have imposed or are eyeing similar bans as the crisis grows and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends people stop using vaping products. Governors in Michigan and Rhode Island have announced sales restrictions, while Massachusetts imposed an outright ban for four months while it examined potential new regulations. Ohio’s state governor this week urged lawmakers to pass a ban. U.S. health officials earlier on Thursday reported 18 deaths due to a mysterious lung illness linked to e-cigarettes and other vaping products and said the number of confirmed and probable cases of the condition now exceeds 1,000. The U.S. Federal Trade Commission also on Thursday ordered several e-cigarette companies, including Juul Labs Inc and Nu Mark, to turn over sales and advertising data, in the first sign of a likely probe of their marketing practices. Tobacco giant Altria Group Inc owns Nu Mark and has a 35% stake in Juul. Abboud noted that New York state lawmakers had already raised the minimum age for the purchase of vapor products from 18 to 21 from November and imposed a tax increase. He said the lobby group was ready to work with officials “to achieve the twin goals of restricting youth vaping, which already is illegal, and preserving flavored alternatives for adults desperately trying to quit smoking.”  The New York state Department of Health had pledged to provide retailers with a two-week grace period before conducting site visits to enforce the ban on all flavored e-cigarettes besides tobacco and menthol. Claim:  The message claims that the singer Shakira was a guest on MTV and during a segment of live telephone calls refused to speak to an Israeli caller.  She is quoted as having said that she’d rather have pigs listening to her music than Israelis.  The eRumor encourages a boycott of Shakira’s music.   
[EX A]:
0