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: "As New York state began implementing a regional approach to reopening after coronavirus-related shutdowns, a lawmaker from western New York complained that many of his constituents faced a longer wait to reopen because they were geographically linked to more hard-hit counties. State Sen. George Borrello, who made the comments in a statement on May 11, represents New York’s 57th district, which includes three less-populated counties — Allegany, Cattaraugus and Chautauqua — south of more heavily populated regions near Buffalo (Erie County) and Niagara Falls (Niagara County). ""While infection rates in Allegany, Cattaraugus and Chautauqua counties have consistently been among the lowest in the state throughout the COVID-19 crisis, our linkage with Erie County and its higher infection rates means that we don’t meet the metrics for reopening, and our hurting, rural economies must remain shut down for at least another two weeks,"" Borrello said in the statement. The state’s reopening plan allowed regions to begin Phase 1 of the reopening process on May 15 as long as they met seven metrics established by the state. The Western New York Region subsequently met all seven metrics on May 18 and entered Phase 1 the following day. But we wondered whether Borrello was correct in his May 11 statement that the infection rates in the three rural counties was substantially lower than those of the more urbanized counties to the north, and consistently among the state's lowest. We used the county-by-county infection tallies posted on Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s pressroom page and converted them to a rate per 10,000 residents. We ranked the counties from the highest to the lowest for each week from March 30 to mid-May, when Borrello made his statement. We found that, as Borrello had said, Allegany, Cattaraugus and Chautauqua counties ranked low in infection rates consistently over that period, while Erie and Niagara started higher and continued to rise: Our analysis found that Chautauqua never ranked higher than sixth from the bottom for infection rates among the 58 New York counties for which data was available, and Chautauqua had the lowest rate of any county for much of the period. Allegany and Cattaraugus ranked marginally higher than Chautauqua, but well below Erie and Niagara. Overall, the three small counties usually ranked in the bottom one-third of counties in the state, and by the time Borrello made his statement, they were all in the bottom one-fifth of counties. By contrast, Erie and Niagara were consistently in the top half of counties as measured by infections per capita. New York City (including all five boroughs) ranked at or near the top for the entire period. The state reopening plan mirrored what many other states are doing, with certain types of non-essential businesses opening in phases in each of 10 regions, as long as certain health measurements are met in the region. Borrello said in an interview that he just wants sensible reopening policies that are implemented ""fairly and equitably."" ""Even though the infection rates are higher in Erie County than the rest of the region, we’re still talking about keeping those same precautions and ensuring that they’re being adhered to,"" he said. Borrello said that ""infection rates in Allegany, Cattaraugus and Chautauqua counties have consistently been among the lowest in the state."" A look at the data from the end of March to mid-May confirms that the infection rate in each of the three counties was usually in the bottom one-third of counties in the state, and by the time Borello made his statement, they were all in the bottom one-fifth of counties. By contrast, Erie and Niagara were consistently in the top half of counties as measured by infections per capita." Claim: “Infection rates in Allegany, Cattaraugus and Chautauqua counties have consistently been among the lowest in the state.”
[EX A]: 2

[EX Q]: Paragraph: "Like most Republicans, Rep. Greg Walden says the $825 billion stimulus law has been a failure. But unlike other critics who speak in contemptuous generalities, Walden puts hard numbers behind his opinion. ""When the bill was signed into law, the White House promised that the stimulus would increase by 44,000 the number of jobs in Oregon by December 2010,"" he says on his official congressional website. ""Unfortunately, even with the stimulus, since the bill was signed, the number of jobs has actually decreased by 18,300 through July 2011."" Walden supports his claim with a study by the Republican staff of the House Ways and Means Committee. That study relies on federal statistics and, sure enough, both the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Oregon Employment Department show that Oregon had fewer people working in July 2010 than February 2009. When the stimulus was signed into law in February 2009, 1.643 million people in Oregon held non-farm jobs, according to the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics. In July 2010, after billions of dollars of stimulus spending had been dispersed, the number of non-farm jobs in Oregon was 1.625 million. That’s a loss of 18,000 jobs which is the number Walden cited. But it’s only part of the story. First, a quick recap. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which is the full name of what is commonly called the stimulus, became law in February 2009. Democrats pushed the legislation as a way to create jobs and extend unemployment benefits through a mix of government spending, tax cuts and financial aid to cash-strapped states. The stimulus and its performance have provided a high intensity battlefield ever since. The White House released at least six reports on the program, counting jobs that were created or ""saved"" as a result of the stimulus. Those counts were augmented by dozens of other reports from independent sources. The most recent came Nov. 22 from the Congressional Budget Office. It says the stimulus is responsible for adding between 500,000 and 3.3 million jobs nationally. But the CBO, which is nonpartisan, also says its reports, ""do not provide a comprehensive estimate of the law’s impact on U.S. employment, which could be higher or lower...""  Among the reasons is that ""some of the jobs included in the reports might have existed even without the stimulus,"" and that the reports do not ""attempt to measure"" the number of indirect jobs. Earlier studies, both independent and partisan, have offered similar ranges for the law’s impact on jobs. A March study by the White House Council of Economic Advisers explains why. ""Evaluating the impact,"" said the report, which was the sixth in a series, "" … is inherently difficult because we do not observe what would have happened to the economy in the absence of policy."" Separately, the council’s report cited four independent analyses by the CBO and three private economic analysis companies that all found between 1.3 million and 3.6 million jobs saved or created. Oregon’s acting state economist Mark McMullen agrees precision is difficult -- and fraught with politics. ""This issue is about as politically charged as topics in economics get,"" he said. He points to CBO numbers to explain how many stimulus jobs were created and reported in Oregon. In 2009, 18,412 direct jobs were created with 33,489 in 2010 and 17,663 in 2011. Even trickier is estimating the indirect jobs from the stimulus. Here, McMullen and other economists extend estimates that Oregon collected between 1.2 percent and 1.5 percent of stimulus jobs depending on the year. That translates to 2,967 to 13,350 indirect jobs in 2009; 8,714 to 41,078 jobs in 2010 and 5,820 to 30,473 jobs in 2011. Economists say there’s another conundrum: Because of constant churning in the economy, the stimulus law could have generated - or come close to generating - the number of jobs the White House predicted even though total employment in the state declined. The reason is that the jobs total is fluid and that additions in jobs like road construction could be eclipsed by losses in other parts of the economy that aren’t touched by the stimulus. There are also jobs protected with stimulus money. Teachers, prison guards, and other state workers who probably would have been laid off were able to keep their jobs because the stimulus sent $2.4 billion to Oregon. More than $1.2 billion was used to fill state cuts to education that could have triggered teacher layoffs in every district. Another $117 million went to public safety, with some of that money used to avoid cut-backs in police and emergency response personnel. The White House and supporters factor those ""saved"" jobs into their calculations. Walden and critics do not. Got it? It’s all very murky and far from precise. But this much is certain: As of July 31, 2011, there were 18,300 fewer people working in Oregon than in February 2009. That is the number Walden cites in his comment and that much is true. But Walden’s context suggests that the stimulus did not produce jobs for Oregon, and that is not correct. While economists and other experts say it’s impossible to say how many Oregon jobs were ""created or saved,"" as the White House puts it, there certainly were some. And it’s clear that a significant number of Oregon jobs would have been lost without the stimulus. Walden’s assertion of lost jobs uses numbers out of context and leaves out important details. Return to OregonLive to comment on this ruling." Claim: "Greg Walden Says the federal stimulus program was ineffective because ""the number of jobs has actually decreased by 18,300 through July 2011."
[EX A]: 1

[EX Q]: Paragraph: The lead author is quoted as stating the implant could prevent HIV infection “more reliably and cheaply,” but the cost is not provided in the release. The cost may well be unknown since the treatment is experimental and in development. However, the published research states that the active ingredient — hydroxychloroquine, or HCQ — “is an inexpensive drug.” Perhaps that price could have been included. And cost is relevant since the vast majority of HIV infections occur in the developing world where cost could have a major influence on compliance with prevention measures. As stated in the news release: The tool, a vaginal implant, decreases the number of cells that the virus can target in a woman’s genital tract Two problems here. First, the emphasis on woman’s is ours because the research was done in rabbits. (The fact that this research used an animal model was not mentioned until the penultimate sentence.) Second, we’re given no data whatsoever to understand just how beneficial or significant the results really are. However, we did appreciate the inclusion of this quote from the lead researcher: What we don’t know yet is if this can be a stand-alone option for preventing HIV transmission or if it might be used in conjunction with other prevention strategies. We aim to answer these questions with future research. Given that the news release opens with “Scientists at the University of Waterloo have developed a new tool to protect women [emphasis added] from HIV infection” it might lead some interested women to ask about side effects. The question of harms is never addressed. That’s a huge oversight given that the device is implanted and there are many risks associated with such procedures: pain, bleeding, infection, the device becoming dislodged, follow-up surgeries to remove the implant. No potential risks are mentioned. In addition, if the device is not effective in comparison to existing preventive strategies then there’s a potential harm in relying on the device and acquiring HIV. This is a major weakness of the news release. Claims of efficacy, reliability, and affordability are made in the release with absolutely no supporting data from the study. Many readers might be familiar with the commonly quoted statistic that condoms — when used properly and consistently — are well over 90% effective in preventing HIV transmission. They would naturally want to know if this implant can approach that efficacy and be accomplished affordably and without side effects. But the news release does not include this. If such information can not be gleaned from  the study — either because it wasn’t measured or because of the limitations of applying results from animal studies to humans — then we encourage news release authors to follow up with the researchers and ask for clarity. No disease mongering. Prevention of HIV transmission is a global public health priority. The release does not mention funding sources. The published study does not include any disclosures of financial conflicts of interest by the authors. The news release briefly mentions “conventional methods of HIV prevention, such as condoms or anti-HIV drugs.” Given the preliminary nature of this experimental device it’s unlikely the authors can conclude how effective this vaginal implant is in comparison to these well-studied, conventional approaches. But mentioning how effective condoms and anti-HIV medications are might have been helpful context. It’s not made clear enough that this vaginal implant is experimental, in development, and has never been tested on humans and that it could be years — if ever — before the device is available. Although the release does not claim novelty specifically, it does mention the past failure of a related attempted preventative (nonoxynol-9). The researchers do emphasize in the published paper that this study is the first of its kind to use a vaginal implant to deliver HCQ to reduce the response of T-lymphocytes in the vagina. Furthermore, they point out this is a uniquely women-oriented strategy against HIV infection (versus a male-dominated one such as condoms). Alluding to potential impacts on women or people four times in the first few paragraphs, but not mentioning the research utilized an animal model until the penultimate paragraph, is quite misleading and unjustified. We’d suggest changing the headline to: “University of Waterloo develops a new way to fight HIV transmission in rabbit study.” Claim: University of Waterloo develops new way to fight HIV transmission
[EX A]:
0