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.

Paragraph: But COVID-19 is shaking her views. The woman who would identify herself only as Stephanie, citing a fear of reprisals from committed anti-vaxxers, says she is now 50:50 on taking a vaccine should one be discovered for the respiratory disease caused by the new coronavirus. “I’ve definitely thought about it,” she told Reuters by phone from the United States, also expressing frustration at what she considers the anti-vax community’s downplaying of the pandemic’s seriousness. “We’re all being affected by this virus, schools closing, young people in hospital, and they still say it’s a hoax.”  As the world’s scientists and pharmaceutical companies seek a cure for the coronavirus, other anti-vaxxers are gearing up for a fight against any potential new vaccine. “Refuse, demonstrate,” said a Briton on Facebook in response to a post asking people how they would react if a vaccine was made mandatory. But some virologists say the quest for a vaccine is so widely supported that resistance will be eroded. The latest national surveys by pollster ORB International for the Vaccine Confidence Project (VCP), which monitors attitudes to immunisation, appear to support this idea. In France, where a 2018 poll showed one in three people did not view vaccines as safe, just 18% would refuse a coronavirus vaccine now, according to the VCP poll of around 1,000 people on March 18, a day after France locked down. In Australia, the VCP’s figure was also 7%, while Britain, where about 2,000 people were polled, and Austria registered 5% opposition in polls there a week later. “If a vaccine were made available tomorrow, everyone would jump to get it,” said Laurent-Henri Vignaud, who co-authored a history of France’s anti-vax movement. That view was challenged by Mary Holland, vice-chair of American non-profit group Children’s Health Defense, which is critical of vaccination in the United States. “I don’t think this virus fundamentally changes people’s deeply held concerns about vaccines,” she told Reuters. Although the term “anti-vax” is sometimes associated with conspiracy theories, many people are simply concerned about side-effects or industry ethics. Globally, one person in five does not view vaccines as safe or is unsure, according to a 2018 survey by the Wellcome Trust health fund. reut.rs/2JTb27q  In China, where the COVID-19 disease caused by the novel coronavirus originated, surveys by VCP researchers show safety is an important cause of concern. Several scandals eroded trust, including in 2018 when a unit of China’s vaccine maker Changsheng Bio-technology Co Ltd was heavily fined for falsifying data for a rabies vaccine. The company said it was “deeply sorry” for the incident. Online discussions tracked by Reuters - including closed Facebook pages with more than 200,000 members, Twitter feeds such as the Children’s Health Defense and YouTube videos totalling over 700,000 views - showed considerable mistrust that a rushed vaccine would be improperly tested. VCP director Heidi Larson said that was also the main reason for concern around the vaccine against the H1N1 swine flu pandemic in 2009. A quickly produced swine flu vaccine in 1976 led to about one in 100,000 people developing Guillain-Barre syndrome, a paralyzing immune-system disorder, according to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Some 115 coronavirus vaccine candidates are being developed by institutes and drugmakers, according to the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovation, a global alliance financing and coordinating the development of vaccines. “I will not be injected with anything, especially a fast-tracked vaccine,” added American Vicki Barneck, 67, who believes a strong immune system is enough to combat the disease. Holland, of the Children’s Health Defense, said: “Some react fine to vaccines, others are paralysed or killed.”   However, a 2015 paper by CDC epidemiologists said “multiple studies and scientific reviews have found no association between vaccination and deaths except in rare cases.”  The VCP is running an 18-month study tracking conversation online about the coronavirus and conducting global polls to measure attitudes towards social distancing, isolation, hand-washing and anticipating a vaccine. From analysing more than 3 million posts a day between January and mid-March 2020, director Dr Heidi Larson said the vast majority were eager for a treatment, fast. “People are hungry for a vaccine,” she said. In Italy, which has been hit badly by COVID-19, the anti-vax movement has “virtually disappeared” in the discussion on the coronavirus, according to virologist Dr Roberto Burioni. For a coronavirus vaccine to be effective, wide uptake and annual vaccination is likely to be required, said George Kassianos, immunisation lead at the Royal College of General Practitioners in London. There is also the question of how to distribute fast enough to people lining up for the vaccine. “Essential workers will be the priority. Police officers, hospital workers, cleaners. Then at-risk groups,” said Douglas L. Hatch, a physician specialised in pandemic preparedness working on the COVID-19 response in San Francisco. “By the time you get to the anti-vaxxers, they’ll have trouble getting it even if they wanted to.”  (Corrects French poll data in eighth paragraph) Claim: Could the new coronavirus weaken 'anti-vaxxers'?.
An American mother-of-three is a long-time member of “anti-vaxxer” groups online: a small but vocal global community that believes vaccines are a dangerous con and refuse to immunize themselves or their children.

Paragraph: WTOP-FM reports that the Fairfax County Fire and Rescue Department is partnering with the National Fire Protection Association Research Foundation on a four-phase study. Part of the focus of the study will be on how chemicals can cling to breathing equipment used by firefighters. Firefighters are exposed to toxic chemicals released into the air by burning buildings and vehicles. According to a National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health study, firefighters are twice as likely to get skin and testicular cancer and mesothelioma. ___ Information from: WTOP-FM, http://www.wtop.com Claim: Firefighters study carcinogen exposure.
Firefighters in Virginia are taking part in a study aimed at finding ways to reduce their exposure to carcinogens.

Paragraph: The researchers who conducted the review said their findings suggest most people can eat red and processed meat at current average intake, typically three or four times a week for adults in North America and Europe, without significant health risks. “Based on the research, we cannot say with any certainty that eating red or processed meat causes cancer, diabetes or heart disease,” said Bradley Johnston, an associate professor at Dalhousie University in Canada who co-led the review published on Monday in the Annals of Internal Medicine journal. However, in what amounts to a scientific food fight, experts from Harvard, Yale, Stanford and elsewhere, including one of the review authors, said guidelines that could lead people to eat more red and processed meats were irresponsible. They asked in a letter to the journal that it “pre-emptively retract publication” of the papers pending further review. A statement by the Harvard School of Public Health, shared with Reuters by Frank Hu, a doctor and chair of the nutrition department, said: “From a public health point of view, it is irresponsible and unethical to issue dietary guidelines that are tantamount to promoting meat consumption, even if there is still some uncertainty about the strength of the evidence.”  The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and the World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF) both say red and processed meat may or can cause cancer. The WCRF advises eating “little, if any” processed meat and only “moderate amounts” of red meat, such as beef, pork and lamb - with a weekly limit of 500 grams (17.6 ounces) cooked weight. Giota Mitrou, the WCRF’s director of research, said people should not misinterpret the review as saying meat is risk-free. “The public could be put at risk if they interpret this new recommendation to mean we can continue eating as much red and processed meat as they like without increasing their risk of cancer,” she said. “This is not the case.”          In the analysis published on Monday, researchers from Canada, Spain and Poland conducted a series of reviews of both randomized controlled trials and observational studies looking at the possible health impact of eating red and processed meat. Among the randomised trials they selected for analysis, which included around 54,000 people, they found no statistically significant link between eating meat and the risk of heart disease, diabetes, or cancer. Among the observational studies, which covered millions of people, they did find “a very small reduction in risk” in those who ate three fewer servings of red or processed meat a week, but said this association “was very uncertain.”  “Our bottom line recommendation ... is that for the majority of people, but not everyone, continuing their red and processed meat consumption is the best approach,” Johnston said. David Katz, director of the Yale-Griffin Prevention Research Center at the Yale University School of Medicine, said he had “grave concerns” about the potential of the new review “for damage to public understanding, and public health”. But other experts said the work was a comprehensive, well-conducted analysis of the available evidence on eating meat and human health. “This study will, I hope, help to eliminate the incorrect impression ... that some meat products are as carcinogenic as cigarette smoke, and to discourage dramatic media headlines claiming that ‘bacon is killing us’,” said Ian Johnson, a nutrition expert at Britain’s Quadram Institute of bioscience. Christine Laine, editor in chief of Annals of Internal Medicine, noted that nutrition studies are challenging. “To be honest with our patients and the public, we shouldn’t be making recommendations that sound like they’re based on solid evidence,” she said. “There may be lots of reasons to decrease meat in your diet, but if you’re decreasing it to improve your health, we don’t have a lot of strong evidence to support that.” Claim: Steak is back on the menu, if a new red meat risk review is to be believed.

Cutting back on red and processed meat brings few if any health benefits, according to a  review of evidence drawn from millions of people, but the finding contradicts dietary advice of international agencies and has prompted criticism from many experts.