Given a paragraph, generate a claim that is supported by the given paragraph. 1) The claim must contain information from within the paragraph. 2) A sentence within the paragraph can be used as a claim. 3) The claim should not have contradictions within the paragraph. 4) The claim should be at most one sentence long.

In that time, at least 20 residents died and more than 100 suffered injuries after homes failed to provide care as required, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution found in examining reports issued by the Georgia Department of Community Health (DCH), which licenses and inspects long-term care facilities and investigates complaints. The actual death toll may be much higher. In interviews with the newspaper, and in lawsuits, families have tied other deaths and injuries for which there were no state citations to improper care. The newspaper examined thousands of regulatory citations and hundreds of police reports from 2015 through 2018, reviewed lawsuits and interviewed dozens of people. The investigation found breakdowns in care that often were rooted in inadequate staffing, poor training or efforts to cut costs. In some cases, seniors tried to summon staff for help and got no response for hours, wandered away from facilities unnoticed, or languished in unsanitary and hazardous conditions. Others fell repeatedly, suffering bruises, bloody faces and broken bones. Some suffered in pain for days without treatment. In some cases, caregivers physically, verbally and sexually abused residents. Georgians seeking care for aging family members pay thousands of dollars a month to facilities that have popped up across the state in recent years promising luxurious amenities and top-flight attentiveness. Many offer to provide safe, consistent care. But the reality, is that too often thin staffs are overwhelmed, seniors have been treated callously or ineptly, and safeguards have been ignored, the investigation discovered. In a 2016 case, it took an aide at a Savannah facility 26 minutes to respond to an emergency call from a resident who had diabetes and high blood pressure. The resident was unconscious by that time. Another 19 minutes elapsed before anyone called 911. When the ambulance made it to the hospital, the resident was pronounced dead. In October 2018, a 92-year-old woman was repeatedly bitten by ants at a facility in Sandy Springs. The upscale facility failed to eradicate the insects that had been reported in her room a week earlier. Then, over two consecutive days, ants attacked the woman in bed. She died days later. Though abuse is less common than neglect, police and DCH records showed that more than 100 residents reportedly were abused by workers of assisted living and large personal care homes over the four years the newspaper's investigation covered. Records showed that at home near Athens, a worker in 2017 hit an 86-year-old woman with dementia who tried to leave the facility, bloodying her nose and bruising a cheek. The same worker was accused of pulling an 84-year-old resident's hair and striking her. A facility in Decatur received a state citation in March 2018 after an aide was accused of abusing a resident late at night. Nine months earlier, a separate allegation of abuse involving two other employees surfaced on the night shift. Will Johnson, the elder abuse prosecutor with the Georgia Prosecuting Attorneys' Council, told the newspaper that elder abuse and neglect is "not acceptable in our society, in our state, anywhere." "No one who has lived their life and reached 70, 80, 90 years of age, raised a family, contributed to society they should never be left to rot in a bed or be bashed in the face or have all of the money that goes to their care squandered," Johnson said. State Rep. Sharon Cooper, R-Marietta, said, "I'm saddened for the people that were injured, and I'm appalled for humanity in general that our elders would be treated this way." "Certainly, as a state, we need to intervene," said Cooper, who chairs the House Health and Human Services Committee. Top officials at DCH refused repeated requests over several months to meet with the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. After the newspaper provided its findings to DCH, a spokesman again declined an interview, saying it wasn't in their "best interest." The agency would only answer questions submitted in writing. While officials didn't directly address some questions, DCH Commissioner Frank W. Berry said the agency manages a heavy workload and is always seeking ways to improve and carry out its mission. "The health and well-being of Georgians is always our top priority," Berry wrote. A 2011 state law paved the way for assisted living communities, expanding choices for families whose only options previously were personal care homes, which serve seniors who need help with meals and medication reminders, or nursing homes for those requiring intense assistance. Assisted living facilities allow a higher level of care from staff who can administer medication and assist residents who need help moving around. The 2011 legislation and the rapid graying of the population have led to facilities' taking in more residents who in their 80s and 90s who have chronic care needs. While facilities market an active lifestyle, some have residents who can't push their own wheelchairs or who need assistance to get out of bed, dress or eat. Some residents are unable to speak. The state cited facilities 238 times for admitting residents with conditions and illnesses that staff could not handle. At the same time, the for-profit companies that dominate the industry have incentives to keep their costs low, which translates to minimal staffing, said Catherine Hawes, Regents Professor Emeritus at the Texas A&M Health Science Center and a nationally recognized expert on long-term care. "It's like - let me sit down and write a prescription for disaster," she said. "You're writing a prescription for abuse and neglect." ___ Information from: The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, http://www.ajc.com
Allegations of neglect, abuse at Georgia elder facilities.

Trump even suggested Thursday that the release could have been intentional. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the clearinghouse for the web of U.S. spy agencies, said it had ruled out the virus being man-made but was still investigating the precise source of the global pandemic, which has killed more than 220,000 people worldwide. Though scientists suggest the likeliest origin of the pandemic remains natural, that it spread from an infected animal to a human, Trump claimed to have seen evidence to support the theory that the origin was an infectious disease lab in Wuhan, the epicenter of the Chinese outbreak. He said the U.S. now "is finding how it came out." "It's a terrible thing that happened," the president said. "Whether they made a mistake or whether it started off as a mistake and then they made another one, or did somebody do something on purpose." The intel statement said the federal agencies concur "with the wide scientific consensus that the COVID-19 virus was not manmade or genetically modified." "The IC will continue to rigorously examine emerging information and intelligence to determine whether the outbreak began through contact with infected animals or if it was the result of an accident at a laboratory in Wuhan." In recent days the Trump administration has sharpened its rhetoric on China, accusing the geopolitical foe and vital trading partner of failing to act swiftly enough to sound the alarm about the outbreak or to stop the spread of the virus that causes COVID-19. U.S. officials have said the Chinese government should "pay a price" for its handling of the pandemic. This all comes as the pace of Trump's own original response continues to come under scrutiny, questioned as too meager and too slow. Earlier Thursday, before Trump's comments, the Chinese government said that any claims that the coronavirus was released from a laboratory are "unfounded and purely fabricated out of nothing." Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang cited the institute's director, Yuan Zhiming, as saying the lab strictly implements bio-security procedures that would prevent the release of any pathogen. "I would like to point out again that the origin of the virus is a complex scientific issue, and it should be studied by scientists and professionals," Geng said. He also criticized those in the U.S. who say China should be held accountable for the global pandemic, saying they should spend their time on "better controlling the epidemic situation at home." At the White House, Trump repeatedly blamed China for its handling of the outbreak, criticizing the country for restricting domestic travel to slow the virus but not international travel to keep it from spreading abroad. "Certainly it could have been stopped," Trump said during an event in the East Room on his administration's efforts to aid seniors during the outbreak. "They either couldn't do it from a competence standpoint, or they let it spread." "It got loose, let's say, and they could have capped it." Earlier this month, Trump addressed the lab theory saying, "More and more, we're hearing the story." Secretary of State Mike Pompeo added at the time, "The mere fact that we don't know the answers that China hasn't shared the answers I think is very, very telling." Pompeo also pressed China to let outside experts into the lab "so that we can determine precisely where this virus began." While Trump and Pompeo have made their feelings clear, a U.S. intelligence official disputed the notion that there was pressure on agencies to bolster a particular theory. The intelligence official was not authorized to publicly discuss the issue and spoke only on condition of anonymity. Scientists say the virus arose naturally in bats. Even so, Pompeo and others have pointed fingers at an institute that is run by the Chinese Academy of Sciences. It has done groundbreaking research tracing the likely origins of the SARS virus, finding new bat viruses and discovering how they could jump to people. "We know that there is the Wuhan Institute of Virology just a handful of miles away from where the wet market was," Pompeo said two weeks ago. The institute has an address 8 miles, or 13 kilometers, from the market that is considered a possible source. U.S. officials say the American Embassy in Beijing flagged concerns about potential safety issues at the lab in Wuhan in 2018, but they have yet to find any evidence the virus originated there nearly two years later. Scientists studying the virus for months have made clear they believe it wasn't man-made but are still working to determine a point at which it may have jumped from animals to humans. Early attention focused on the live-animal market in Wuhan where the first cases were reported in December. But the first person identified with the disease had no known connection to that market. Kristian Andersen, who studies the virus at Scripps Research in La Jolla, California, puts the odds of it being accidentally released by the Wuhan lab at "a million to one," far less likely than an infection in nature. But virus expert David O'Connor of the University of Wisconsin-Madison said he thinks too little is known to rule out any source, except the idea the virus was man-made. Finding the source is important, he said, because it may harbor the next pandemic virus. The U.S. was providing funding to the Wuhan lab for its research on coronaviruses, Michael Morell, former acting director and deputy director of the CIA, said Thursday. He said State Department cables indicate that there have been concerns in past years among U.S. officials about the safety protocols at that lab. If the virus did escape from a Chinese lab, it not only reflects negatively on China but also on the United States for providing research funding to a lab that has safety concerns, Morell said during an online forum hosted by the Michael V. Hayden Center for Intelligence, Policy and International Security at George Mason University. "So if it did escape, we're all in this together," Morell said. "This is not a gotcha for China. This is a gotcha for both of us." ___ Associated Press writers Deb Riechmann in Washington and Malcolm Ritter in New York contributed to this report.
Trump speculates that China released virus in lab 'mistake'.

We were happy to see some attention to the potential cost of the stent and in comparison to the existing drug eluting stents. In addition, the story provided information on the market size at the present time. The story really does not provide a crisp rationale for a bioabsorbable stent. An important limitation of existing stents is that they are associated with increased risk of clots. The absorbable stents are designed tohelp with this problem, but the story doesn't communicate this. It onlyrefers to thepossibility that thenew stents may also cause clots in some people. The comments of the Abbott spokesperson aside, the reader is not provided with any idea of how often the existing stents create difficulties and why the Abbott stent will alleviate the problem. We liked the fact that the potential downsides of the bioabsorbable stent were included in the story. The story notes that the bioabsorbable stent is thicker and may require patients to be on potent anti-clotting drugs, thus exposing the patient to a risk of bleeding. The story also notes that previous studies have shown a low rate of complications. We would have liked to have seen some information about the complications seen. The results of the latest study examining the bioabsorbable stent haven't yet been released,and the story does not delve into optimistic speculation about what the studymay show. We liked the way in which the theoretical advantages are stated and thatthe many unknowns and questions that remain are included. The story could haveprovided abit more informationon the previous studies of bioabsorble stents that are alluded to in the story, especially since there are no new datato discuss. There was no disease-mongering in the story. The statements made bya company representativeare counterbalanced by comments from Dr. Virmani, an independent expert in coronary artery disease and a very outspoken individual. We would have liked to have a comment or two on the parallel developments ongoing in this field. Coronary artery disease is more than a singe blockage. It is a systemic disease that is progressive unless systemic interventions are employed. Aggressive medical therapy is now viewed as an essential element to ongoing care and should have been included for completeness The story makes it clear that while the absorbable stent is available in Europe, Abbot will not be seeking approval for marketing in the United States until 2015. The idea of a bioabsorbable stent is not new or unique to Abbott. The concept was proposed in the early 1990's and the other players are also working on their own version. Although the story alludes to the fact that competitors might seek to follow Abbott's lead, it doesn't convey that other companies are already quite far along in their research. Since the story quotes an unaffiliated expert in the field of cardiac pathophysiology, it is clear that it did not rely solely on a press release. We do wonder, however, why the story ran prior to the issuance of the preliminary results on the new study.
Patients May Benefit From New Heart Device