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: Authorities are hoping large-scale manufacturers can use their low-cost supply chains and digital design expertise, including 3D printing, and repurpose some factories in order to make up the expected shortfall in vital medical hardware. Some of Britain’s biggest aerospace and car companies have formed three teams to produce basic ventilators to help the country’s National Health Service cope with the coronavirus outbreak. Meggitt Plc, which builds components including oxygen systems for civil aerospace and military fighter programs, is leading one consortium alongside engineers GKN, Thales SA and Renishaw Plc. The other two teams are being led by carmakers McLaren, which is looking at how to design a simple version of a ventilator, and Nissan Motor Co, which is working with others to support existing ventilator producers. Ventilators, machines which move air in and out of the lungs, could be the difference between life and death for coronavirus patients suffering breathing difficulties. But getting new production up to speed will not be easy, some in the manufacturing industry said. “Precision milling and 3D printing techniques could help manufacture complex parts,” said Rene-Christopher Wollmann, program and platform director at Automobili Pininfarina, which uses virtual design software to build electric hypercars. “But this depends on how much know-how existing manufacturers (of ventilators) are prepared to share about the design of such a machine,” he added. “Another bottleneck will be assembling such machines under conditions which are adequate for the medical industry.”   The idea of using automakers to supply medical equipment got started in China, where electric car maker BYD earlier this month began turning out 5 million face masks and 300,000 bottles of hand sanitizer a day. The Shenzhen-based automaker is backed by U.S. investor Warren Buffett. Since then the idea has spread to other industries and countries. European aerospace group Airbus is working across its processes to see if its 3D printing or production facilities can be of use. “The aim is for there to be a (ventilator) prototype in two weeks and for manufacturing to start in four weeks,” one person familiar with the situation at the company said. In northern Italy, the epicenter of the virus outbreak outside China, Italian carmakers Ferrari and Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV are in talks with the nation’s biggest ventilator manufacturer to help it boost production, company officials said on Thursday. The Italian government has embarked on a big expansion of intensive care beds, many of which will require ventilators. A source familiar with the matter said sports car maker Ferrari NV would be ready to start manufacturing ventilator parts in its famous Maranello headquarters, close to a ventilator factory operated by small medical equipment maker Siare Engineering. The luxury carmaker had yet to make a final decision. “We’re talking to Fiat Chrysler, with Ferrari and (component maker) Marelli to try to understand if they can lend us a hand in this process for the electronics part,” Siare Engineering Chief Executive Gianluca Preziosa told Reuters. Siare could also benefit from the automakers’ purchasing power, Preziosa said. A spokesman for Exor NV, parent firm of both Fiat Chrysler and Ferrari, said meetings had taken place on Thursday with Siare to study the feasibility of the idea and that a decision was expected shortly. The spokesman said two main options were being considered: help Siare to engineer a capacity increase at its plant with the support of technicians provided by Fiat Chrysler and Ferrari; or outsource production of ventilator parts to the carmakers’ facilities. In the United States, the federal government is in talks with Detroit auto giants General Motors Co and Ford Motor Co about how they can help expand ventilator production, the companies and White House officials said on Wednesday. It would not be the first time Detroit retooled auto plants to confront a national crisis. During World War Two Ford, GM and the former Chrysler stopped building cars and directed their factories and engineers to mass-produce airplanes, tanks and other weaponry at unprecedented levels, earning Detroit the nickname the “Arsenal of Democracy.”  On Wednesday, U.S. President Donald Trump said he would invoke the Defense Production Act, a law dating back to the Korean War of the 1950s which grants the president broad authority to “expedite and expand the supply of resources from the U.S. industrial base,” which could allow the government to speed production of masks, respirators, ventilators and other needed equipment. Ford CEO Jim Hackett told employees in a town hall meeting that Ford is working on building ventilators if the idea is feasible. GM CEO Mary Barra spoke to White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow about the issue after the company announced it would suspend North American production through March 30. Separately, Tesla CEO Elon Musk used his Twitter account to offer his company’s services. “We will make ventilators if there is a shortage,” Musk tweeted, responding to a suggestion that the billionaire repurpose a factory for the task. The comment immediately drew hundreds of replies urging him to act. Claim: World's governments draft manufacturers for virus treatment arsenal.

Output: From Washington to London, Beijing to Rome, governments are drafting automakers and aerospace manufacturers to ramp up production of ventilators and other medical equipment to bolster what most experts say is an inadequate arsenal of coronavirus treatment tools.


Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: Cost is not a component of this story. That is an issue, as the story compares three weight-loss surgical options for morbidly obese individuals, and readers might well be interested in the economics. Also, it would be useful to discuss the costs of not having surgery in the matched population. The story does a nice job of making the weight loss comparisons—both over time for gastric bypass surgery and across surgical options—clear. The story makes no mention of harms. Bariatric procedures can lead to an array of complications that are worth considering. And on the flip side, it’s worth noting that research also has indicated that bariatric surgery can both extend quantity and quality of life when compared to not having surgery. Details of the two-part study conducted here are included and clearly described. And we were also pleased to see several study limitations discussed: “For example, the study included mostly men, so the findings may not apply to women.” That said, we do wish more had been said about the study participants, such as average body mass index levels before and after the surgeries. Morbid obesity is a major and growing health issue with frustratingly few treatment options. Sources are clearly identified, along with information about their links to the study itself (one scientist was the study’s lead researcher, and the other quoted in the story was independent). This is another strong point of the story. The study compared the longer term weight-loss outcomes of the three primary bariatric surgical procedures. The story doesn’t make it readily clear how accessible these surgeries are, and who is a good candidate for one. Typically, these procedures are for people over a certain body-mass index, for example. And insurance coverage may or may not pay for it. The story is clear that this study contributes to a growing set of data about long-term weight-loss effects of these surgeries. Duke Medicine issued a news release, and the HealthDay story does not rely solely on it. Claim: Weight-Loss Surgery Sheds Pounds Long Term

Output: Bariatric surgeries have been identified as perhaps the most successful means for people who are morbidly obese to lose weight, and use of these procedures is increasing, according to the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery. Information about whether the weight-loss results last, and for how long, is a useful addition to the growing medical literature on these surgeries. The study described here by HealthDay speaks directly to the issue in a couple of well-designed analyses, and the story does a good job of explaining both the methods and the results. Missing from an otherwise good narrative is information about the risks of these procedures, as well as their costs and overall availability to the general public. Obesity is a major health issue in the United States, and the use of bariatric surgical procedures is being used increasingly for those who are morbidly obese. Knowing how long people keep the weight off–and by how much—is useful for those deciding whether to opt into the procedure. Also of interest is if the health benefits, such as remission of type 2 diabetes, were sustained, though this study didn’t appear to investigate that.


Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: No information is given on the cost of a typical course of treatment. This study does not aim to quantify the benefits of treatment, rather to show whether there is any difference in risk of death associated with taking hormone therapy for 5 to 7 years. The original Women’s Health Initiative trial was designed to examine whether there was any benefit of hormone therapy for prevention or heart disease, which had been suggested by earlier studies. The story does a good job of outlining the complicated history of findings from hormone replacement studies, and the harms and risks, and uses numbers to explain the risks. There is great nuance in the findings, which can be interpreted differently for women of different ages seeking HRT. Women bring different life risks of cardiovascular disease or breast cancer with them into any discussion of HRT. The conclusion quoted in the story may be less-than-reassuring, but is here: “Hormone therapy has been in and out of favor – first it was good for all menopausal women, then it was dangerous for all women,” McNeil said. “The take-home message now is that for the right patient, hormone therapy is safe and effective.” The story does a good job of describing how the study was done and establishing the high-quality of evidence from a large randomized trial. There was no disease mongering. The story included an independent source and there does not appear any conflicts of interest that should have been disclosed. The story is about alternatives, on its face, about the alternative of taking or not taking hormone replacement therapy. We wish there had been a sentence or two more on how other methods are available to women to ease symptoms. These therapies are widely available and that’s implied in the story. The story makes it clear that this is a new analysis that looks at long-term data on deaths years after use or non-use of hormone therapy. The story includes original reporting and does not rely solely on the news release. Claim: Menopause hormone therapy not linked to premature death


Output: This is a story about a study that follows-up on the long-term effects of hormone therapy on the risk of death. The findings show that women who took combined hormone therapy (estrogen and progesterone) for approximately 5 years, or who took estrogen alone for 7 years, had the same risk of death 18 years later as those who had taken no hormone therapy. Thus the small increases in risk of developing breast cancer and (mainly in older women) heart disease with combined hormone therapy did not translate into an increased risk of death. The story does a good job describing the findings, and how the study was designed. The inclusion of an independent source also strengthened the reporting. A discussion of the costs would have made it even stronger. The subject of women and menopause and hormone therapy has been debated for decades. This new study, which shows no significant difference in death rates for women who did or did not take hormone replacement, is important. But the take-home message, which is also important, is that each woman has to talk about risk vs. benefit with her own health-care practitioner in order to understand the nuances. This story will help women make an informed choice.