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.

[Q]: Paragraph: There are 16,481 fewer beds in hospitals since 2010. This is in the right ballpark, but it doesn't seem to be the best comparison. It seems to compare the number of beds at different times of the year, but the number available fluctuates seasonally. Comparing July-September in 2010 and 2017, the decrease in beds available overnight in England is closer to 13,200. 66 A&E and maternity wards have been closed. We don't know, as this information isn't collected nationally. In 2014, there were reportedly plans to close or downgrade 66 in England, but while some have been, others have stayed open. 103 NHS walk-in centres have closed or been downgraded since 2010. We don't know exactly, as this information isn't collected centrally. Research from an NHS regulator and from campaign group 38 Degrees suggests more than 90 have been closed or downgraded. 60 ambulance stations have closed since 2010. We don't know how many ambulance stations have closed since 2010 as national figures on this aren't regularly published. 1,000 GP practices have closed since 2010. There are around 1,000 fewer GP practices in England in 2017 than in 2010. Some practices may have merged together, rather than closing completely, but we don't know how many have done so. A&E four hour targets have been missed more than 10 million times since 2010. Correct. Between 2010/11 and 2017/18, around 12 million A&E attendances in England took over four hours from arrival to admission, transfer or discharge. The number of patients waiting more than 12 hours in A&E is up 2,700% since 2010. Correct (although not all patients will necessarily have been waiting in A&E). In 2011/12, 120 patients in England waited 12 hours between the decision to admit them to emergency admissions and their actual admission, compared to 3,500 in 2017/18. Spending on social care is down 8% since 2010. Analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies last year said that between 2009/10 and 2016/17, councils' spending on adult social care in England fell 8% in real terms. Newer analysis says that it fell by 6% over the same period. We've asked it for more information. There are 5,240 fewer mental health nurses since 2010. This seems to be looking at different months in 2010 and 2017, which isn't the best comparison. Comparing the number of full-time equivalent mental health nurses between January 2010 and January 2018 (the latest figures), the drop is closer to 4,500. The number of operations classed as urgent that have been cancelled twice have doubled since 2010. Correct. The number of urgent operations in England cancelled for the second time or more for non-medical reasons more than doubled between 2011/12 and 2017/18. There has been a 22% drop in ambulances meeting their 15 minute transfer target since 2010. The decrease is actually greater28%. In 2010/11 in England 80% of ambulance transfers were done in 15 minutes, in 2015/16 it was 58%. Claim 1 of 12 Claim: Spending on social care is down 8% since 2010.
[A]: Analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies last year said that between 2009/10 and 2016/17, councils' spending on adult social care in England fell 8% in real terms. Newer analysis says that it fell by 6% over the same period. We've asked it for more information.

[Q]: Paragraph: "For the third year in a row, the Milwaukee Brewers' lights-out closer John Axford faced a challenge when it came to getting to spring training on time. In 2010, it was an auto accident; in 2011 a case of food poisoning. This season it was red tape involving his 8-month-old son, J.B., also known to Axford's Twitter followers as ""Little Ax."" The boy was born in Milwaukee, and is a U.S. citizen. The elder Axford, however, is a Canadian. And his trip to Arizona was delayed because he didn't have a passport for the baby when he was planning to fly from Canada into the United States. His Twitter followers (@JohnAxford) got a play-by-play of his travel travails. Among the offerings: ""Thank you Homeland Security for not letting my AMERICAN son into AMERICA! #3YearValentinesCurse #WontBeSeeingYouTodayWarmWeatherInPhoenix"" He was more expansive in an interview with the Journal Sentinel, which is what prompted us to turn our version of the radar gun -- the Truth-O-Meter -- on Axford. ""Homeland Security requires passports for every age, no matter what,"" Axford said in the interview. ""You can arrive by land or sea if you're under the age of 15 with a birth certificate, but if you go by air Homeland Security requires passports for everybody, no matter what the age."" Is he right? Passports only by air, though birth certificates suffice by car or boat? Now, it's Axford is a sports figure. But his statement touches squarely on U.S. policy. So we checked with the State Department, Homeland Security, border control and several federal government websites. Turns out the rules are different for border-crossing babies, depending on the mode of travel. If you're traveling by air, you need a passport. Period. And, yes, you have to get a photograph of the kid. A kid passport costs $105. However, if you're coming by land -- such as the border crossing in Detroit -- the rules are less strict, and less expensive. ""U.S. children ages 15 and under arriving by land or sea from a contiguous territory may present an original or copy of his or her birth certificate (issued by the Vital Records Department in the state where he or she was born), a Consular Report of Birth Abroad, or a Naturalization Certificate. If the child is a newborn and the actual birth certificate has not arrived from the Vital Records Department, we will accept a Hospital issued birth certificate."" Each year, the federal government issues about 450,000 passports to infants, a spokeswoman for the State Department said in an email. The department even provides helpful hints for how to take a passport picture of your little one. Kiddie passports are valid for five years. In the end, Axford got to spring training the hard way, again. His father drove the family across the border to Detroit and they caught a flight from there to Arizona. Our conclusion Axford's trip back to the mound took a detour. He said it was because of travel delays and said federal law required his baby to have a passport to fly back into the country. He learned a valuable lesson about border crossing: The feds are always right." Claim: All travelers -- even babies -- arriving in the U.S. by air must have a passport.
[A]: Milwaukee Brewers pitcher John Axford says even babies need a passport to enter the U.S. by air

[Q]: Paragraph: In responses provided to Congress and obtained by The Associated Press, the VA said it never "encouraged or discouraged" its government-run hospitals to use hydroxychloroquine on patients even as President Donald Trump heavily promoted the drug for months without scientific evidence of its effectiveness. Still, it acknowledged that VA Secretary Robert Wilkie had wrongly asserted publicly without evidence that the drug had been shown to benefit younger veterans. The VA, the nation's largest hospital system, also agreed more study was needed on the drug and suggested its use was now limited to extenuating circumstances, such as last-ditch efforts to save a coronavirus patient's life. In the first week of May, 17 patients had received the drug for COVID-19, according to VA data obtained by the AP. The department declined to say how many patients had been treated with hydroxychloroquine for the coronavirus since January, but a recent analysis of VA hospital data showed that hundreds of veterans had taken it by early April. "VA has not endorsed nor discouraged the use of hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19 patients and has left those decisions to providers and their patients," the VA said. "While all drugs have the potential for adverse events and some drugs in particular, like hydroxychloroquine, are known to have specific risks, when they are used carefully and judiciously, they can be managed safely." As of Friday, 11,883 veterans had been confirmed to be infected with the virus and 985 had died, according to VA statistics. Responding to written questions from Sen. Jon Tester, the top Democrat on the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, the department admitted it had no studies or evidence to back up Wilkie's claim that hydroxychloroquine had shown effectiveness in younger veterans in particular. "The use of hydroxychloroquine for COVID has dropped off dramatically," the VA said. Trump repeatedly has pushed the malaria drug hydroxychloroquine with or without the antibiotic azithromycin, but no large, rigorous studies have found them safe or effective for COVID-19, and they can cause heart rhythm problems and other side effects. The Food and Drug Administration has warned against the drug combination and said hydroxychloroquine should only be used for the coronavirus in formal studies. Two large observational studies, each involving around 1,400 patients in New York, recently found no benefit from hydroxychloroquine. Two new ones published Thursday in the journal BMJ, one by French researchers and the other from China, reached the same conclusion. Tester, who received VA's responses this week, said he remained concerned about the drug's safety. "Any drug used to treat patients with COVID-19, especially veterans living with debilitating preexisting conditions, must be proven safe and effective before it's administered," he said. "Given recent studies from both VA and other hospitals, hydroxychloroquine seems to fall short of those requirements." Major veterans organizations and Democrats including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer had called on the VA to explain why it allowed the use of an unproven drug on vets. Last week, a whistleblower complaint by former Health and Human Services official Rick Bright alleged that the Trump administration wanted to "flood" hot spots in New York and New Jersey with the drug. Jeremy Butler, CEO of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, said Friday that his group was heartened by the VA's preliminary explanations and called it imperative that it release additional details. "It remains concerning that it took this long to begin to get answers to basic questions," he said. The analysis of VA hospital data, done by independent researchers at two universities with VA approval, was not a rigorous experiment. Researchers analyzed medical records of 368 older male veterans hospitalized with confirmed coronavirus infection at VA medical centers who died or were discharged by April 11. About 28% of veterans who were given hydroxychloroquine plus usual care died, versus 11% of those getting routine care alone. In its response to Congress, the department provided copies of some of its guidance issued to VA physicians on hydroxychloroquine from March to May. It made clear that hydroxychloroquine should be considered mostly for use in clinical trials or when medically appropriate after a full discussion with the patient about risks. The VA did not explain the circumstances in which veterans in the recent analysis of hospital data were given the drug, only suggesting that "it is possible" they were prescribed as part of last efforts to save a patient's life. "Based on the principles of patient-centric care, it would be inappropriate to deny patients access to hydroxychloroquine under these dire circumstances," VA wrote. It said it had followed the approach of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases by "summarizing the medical literature regarding unapproved treatments for COVID-19 and making that available to VA clinicians in their shared decision-making with patients." That guidance now includes preliminary studies on remdesivir, which has been federally approved for emergency use to treat COVID-19. One VA document dated March 25 notes a few "very small cohort studies" showing possible "beneficial effects" but adds "these data have NOT been verified in randomized controlled trials and are extremely preliminary." The VA acknowledged to Congress that it had placed bulk orders for hydroxychloroquine from Feb. 1 to April 23 for 6.3 million tablets worth $208,000 in anticipation of a possible shortage of the drug, but that most of it was being used for approved uses, such as treating lupus and rheumatoid arthritis. It said it did not have breakdowns. The department also said it planned further studies and clinical trials on hydroxychloroquine, including whether it could help prevent infection in veterans who were potentially exposed to COVID-19. It is in discussions with Novartis to have some VA facilities participate in a national clinical trial that will look at the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine in combination with azithromycin in patients with moderate and severe disease. ___ AP Chief Medical Writer Marilynn Marchione in Milwaukee contributed to this report. Claim: VA says it won't stop use of unproven drug on vets for now.
[A]:
Facing growing criticism, the Department of Veterans Affairs said Friday that it will not halt use of an unproven malaria drug on veterans with COVID-19 but that fewer of its patients are now taking it.