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.

Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: As the new coronavirus spreads from China, travel guidelines being issued by governments across the world all express notes of growing caution. But they contain subtle differences on where to avoid, how to behave and what to do after a trip. With few exceptions, the prevailing advice of national authorities is to avoid Hubei province - epicenter of an outbreak that has now infected 80,000 people worldwide - and to reduce Chinese travel to the bare minimum. Once inside China, Swiss travelers for example are urged by their government to avoid large gatherings and “cough or sneeze into a tissue, or use the crook of your arm”. France tells its nationals not to eat raw meat or visit animal markets. The Spanish Foreign Ministry also urges against contact with animals in China and suggests making sure that you stay at least one meter away from the next person. For travelers to Italy - the country most badly hit by the virus in Europe - the Dutch government recommends that its citizens avoid areas already locked down by local authorities and only travel to parts of the wider Lombardy region around the closed-off towns if necessary. The Finnish Foreign Ministry advice on Italy is simply to “take special care”. Differences also emerge in the advice to travelers on their return from an affected area. Germany’s main authority for infectious diseases tells those returning with symptoms from outbreak regions in Italy to see a doctor and call prior to their visit. But France asks such people not to visit the doctor but to call emergency services. Britain urges its nationals to “self-isolate” at home if they have been to the areas quarantined by Italy whether or not they have symptoms. The Danish Health Authority currently stipulates no routine quarantine or isolation of people who have traveled to China or other places hit by the outbreak. Countries outside Europe take different stances. Turkey advises against all but essential travel to China but has not yet issued travel advice on Italy. Nigeria has a voluntary two-week self-quarantine in place for all passengers arriving from China or any country with “a major outbreak”. Guidance for returning air passengers says “try to avoid” going out but wear a mask if you do. Claim: Coronavirus travel: national advice not all of a piece.

Output: Should travelers avoid parts of the world near coronavirus hotspots? Or go - but then tread carefully? The official advice they receive may depend on whether they live in Amsterdam, Helsinki, Madrid or Lagos.


Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: "In his August Facebook Live video, Gov. Eric Greitens encouraged viewers to submit their questions. One viewer asked, ""What do we do for our veterans except use them as our reason to get mad when it fits our agenda?"" In response, Greitens touched on providing jobs for veterans, in addition to citing the rate of veterans graduating from treatment courts in Missouri. ""Our veterans in our veterans court, are graduating — 73 percent of our veterans are graduating from drug courts,"" Greitens said. ""By contrast, I think most of the people in the very good drug court program — the graduation rate’s like 53, 55 percent. The point of that is that drug courts are working for veterans."" We were wondering: Are 73 percent of veterans graduating from treatment courts? While we never heard back from Greitens’ spokesman, a Supreme Court of Missouri spokeswoman pointed us in the direction of where those numbers came from. According to the Missouri Courts website, treatment courts began as a way to battle increasing substance abuse problems. Treatment courts have existed in Missouri for nearly 25 years. The first treatment court was started in 1993 in Jackson County. Legislation in 2013 established the first veterans treatment courts programs, which ""are hybrid drug and mental health court dockets that use the treatment court model to serve veterans struggling with addiction, serious mental illness and/or co-occurring disorders,"" according to a treatment courts fact sheet. As of August 2017, there were 147 treatment court programs throughout the state. Of those, 12 are veterans treatment courts, with the remaining being adult, juvenile, family and DWI courts. Veterans can be accepted into treatment courts for drug-involved offenses and DWI offenses, Beth Riggert, communications counsel for the Supreme Court of Missouri, wrote in an email. According to the treatment courts fact sheet, ""The graduation rate for all programs in fiscal 2017 exceeds 61 percent."" However, the most recent data on veterans treatment courts is from calendar year 2016, Riggert said. In that time frame, there were a total of 247 veterans participating in veterans treatment courts in the state, Riggert said. However, because the program is rolling, only a total of 82 veterans exited the program in 2016. Of those, 60 successfully graduated the program and 22 did not. That translates to a success rate of 73.17 percent, or just about what Greitens said. Since 2011, the graduation rate from veterans treatment courts has steadily been increasing as more veterans have gone through the program. Greitens also said, ""By contrast, I think most of the people in the very good drug court program — the graduation rate’s like 53, 55 percent."" Because we were unable to reach Greitens’ spokesman for comment, we are unsure which specific treatment courts program Greitens was referring to when he said ""the very good drug court program."" However, Riggert elaborated on the graduation for other treatment court programs. In the same period, the graduation rate from adult drug courts was 52 percent, and the graduation rate from DWI courts was 90 percent, Riggert said. While Greitens is correct that the veterans treatment courts’ graduation rate was higher than some, such as the adult drug court’s rate, it is still not as high as the DWI court’s graduation rate of 90 percent. However, Riggert said it may not be accurate to compare graduation rates between treatment courts to prove one program’s success. ""The various types of treatment court programs are distinct, and so it is not helpful to try to make a side-by-side comparison,"" Riggert said. While 73 percent of veterans exiting the program did graduate in 2016, it is unclear how many veterans who graduate from the program have to return for additional treatment. ""Because veterans treatment courts are relatively new, we do not yet have sufficient quantifiable data from which to determine recidivism rates for these programs,"" Riggert said. Greitens said, ""73 percent of our veterans are graduating from drug courts. By contrast, I think most of the people in the very good drug court program — the graduation rate’s like 53, 55 percent. The point of that is that drug courts are working for veterans."" While the overall numbers are small, Greitens is correct that in 2016, 73 percent of veterans successfully completed treatment court. Over the same time period, the overall graduation rate from adult treatment court was 52 percent, officials say. However, officials also pointed out that the two programs are not identical, which makes comparing them imprecise. In addition, while graduation rate is one measurement of success, it’s not the only one, and as Riggert noted, veteran treatment courts are so new that no data on recidivism rates have been collected." Claim: Seventy-three percent of our veterans are graduating from drug courts. By contrast, I think most of the people in the very good drug court program — the graduation rate’s like 53, 55 percent. The point of that is that drug courts are working for veterans.

Output: "Our ruling Greitens said, ""73 percent of our veterans are graduating from drug courts. By contrast, I think most of the people in the very good drug court program — the graduation rate’s like 53, 55 percent. The point of that is that drug courts are working for veterans."" Greitens said, ""73 percent of our veterans are graduating from drug courts. By contrast, I think most of the people in the very good drug court program — the graduation rate’s like 53, 55 percent. The point of that is that drug courts are working for veterans."" While the overall numbers are small, Greitens is correct that in 2016, 73 percent of veterans successfully completed treatment court. Over the same time period, the overall graduation rate from adult treatment court was 52 percent, officials say. While the overall numbers are small, Greitens is correct that in 2016, 73 percent of veterans successfully completed treatment court. Over the same time period, the overall graduation rate from adult treatment court was 52 percent, officials say. However, officials also pointed out that the two programs are not identical, which makes comparing them imprecise. In addition, while graduation rate is one measurement of success, it’s not the only one, and as Riggert noted, veteran treatment courts are so new that no data on recidivism rates have been collected. However, officials also pointed out that the two programs are not identical, which makes comparing them imprecise. In addition, while graduation rate is one measurement of success, it’s not the only one, and as Riggert noted, veteran treatment courts are so new that no data on recidivism rates have been collected."


Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: The release does not mention cost or whether it’s covered by private insurance or Medicare, and in this case, it’s a pretty big omission. This may be an enormously expensive treatment for patients — and it’s why we have a cost criterion in our reviews. The hopeful psoriasis patient who sees this release without a cost discussion might already have their hand on the phone to call their dermatologist. Here’s a very rough estimate of what that patient might face in terms of cost: Based on a conservative wholesale price of roughly $4,000 per 80 mg injection and following the recommendation (found on the package insert) of two injections every two weeks for 12 weeks, followed by monthly injections, we calculated $48,000 for the first 12 weeks plus $36,000 for the following 9 months or $84,000 total. The release stated that by week 12, “76.4 to 81.8 percent of patients had their psoriasis classified as “clear” or “minimal” compared to 3.2% of patients on the placebo. By the 60th week, 68.7 to 78.3 percent of patients had maintained their improvement.” We also wanted more detail on the measured strength of the response for each patient. For example, what constitutes “minimal”? The release adequately addresses harms and notes that long-term side effects are unknown with this sentence: “Adverse events associated with ixekizumab included slightly higher rates of neutropenia (low white blood cell count), yeast infection and inflammatory bowel disease compared to the placebo. The safety of therapy longer than 60 weeks will need to be monitored in the future.” The release clearly and thoroughly describes the three phase 3 international trials at 21 sites, that they enrolled a large number of patients, and that they were randomized and controlled. There was no disease mongering. The release describes what psoriasis is and its prevalence, and explains that these trials were for moderate to severe psoriasis which covers at least 10 percent of the body. The release is very transparent in stating that the drug manufacturer paid for the research and that the lead researcher is a paid consultant to Eli Lilly. The release did not compare the many different ways that patients treat psoriasis, some with topical agents and some with oral steroids or other medications. The release states that the drug has been approved by the FDA following the completion of the trials. This is a strong indication that the drug is or soon will be available. The release should have noted that the drug is already being marketed under the brand name Taltz. The release makes an understated claim to novelty with this quote from the lead researcher: “Ten years ago, we thought complete clearance of this disease was impossible. It wasn’t something we would even try to do. Now with this drug, we’re obtaining response levels higher than ever seen before.” There was no unjustifiable language in the release. Claim: New drug clears psoriasis in clinical trials


Output: This release summarizes results from a group of three phase 3 studies that evaluated ixekizumab, a new drug treatment for psoriasis. The clinical trials enrolled nearly 4,000 patients from 21 countries. About 80 percent of the patient volunteers with moderate-to-severe psoriasis that received the drug saw improvement that lasted about a year, according to the release. The release avoided exaggeration of benefits, and carefully noted the side effects and that the drug manufacturer, Eli Lilly, funded the research and hired the first author as a paid consultant. A little more information about the drug itself — specifically that it is an injection — and a discussion of the cost would have made this an even more thorough elease. An estimated 7.5 million people in the United States have psoriasis, an inflammatory auto-immune disorder of the skin and other tissues, according to the American Academy of Dermatology. The positive results being published in a high-level New England Journal of Medicine report (on which the release is based) will likely result in this treatment being used in clinical practice.