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.

Ex Input:
Paragraph: The National Health Commission on Sunday also issued a notice asking for improvement in testing capacity and quality nationwide. Nine of the new cases were imported infections, data from commission showed. Authorities reported that total confirmed cases across mainland China had risen to 82,735 with 4,632 deaths as of April 18. The northeastern province of Heilongjiang has seen a rise in infected travellers arriving from Russia in recent weeks, and is now battling to contain a flare-up in local cases. Heilongjiang has reported 39 new local cases in the past 10 days, or more than 50% of all new 73 locally transmitted cases reported in the mainland during the same period. Most were related to one imported case in the provincial capital, Harbin. On Friday, 18 officials in Harbin, including a vice mayor, were punished. To help contain the outbreak, the Heilongjiang government is cautioning against family gatherings, cross infections at hospitals, and slow reporting in epidemic investigations, it said on the provincial government's website. "The biggest political task at present is to stop the rebound and spread of the epidemic," Wang Yongkang, vice governor of Heilongjiang, was quoted as saying. Elsewhere in mainland China, all areas in central Hubei province including Wuhan, the epicentre of the outbreak in China, are now considered low risk. However, a Beijing central district is seen as high-risk, according to a social media post by the State Council, or Cabinet. On April 15, the Chinese capital reported three local cases, all of which were linked to an imported infection. Areas that are considered of medium-risk in China include two districts in Harbin, the city of Suifenhe in Heilongjiang, two districts in the southern city of Guangzhou and Jiaozhou city in eastern Shandong province. Separately, authorities reported 44 new asymptomatic cases of coronavirus, including three which were imported. Such cases, where patients test positive but show no clinical symptoms such as a cough or fever, are excluded from China's tally of confirmed cases. In urging better testing, the National Health Commission said all large general hospitals need to set up laboratories that meet certain requirements and can conduct coronavirus testing independently. Since March, an average 54,000 tests have been conducted a day in Hubei province and that rose to 89,000 tests on April 17, Liu Dongru, a Hubei health commission official, told a news conference on Sunday. In Beijing, the number of institutions able to conduct nucleic acid testing has risen to 50 from 17 in early February, a municipal health commission official said on Sunday. In areas under great pressure, especially at land borders, local governments should help county-level medical institutions obtain nucleic acid testing capability, the commission said. Testing should be conducted by qualified medical institutions and independent medical laboratories, it said, adding that training for medical staff should be stepped up and testing operations standardised to reduce problems with the accuracy of testing. Claim: China's new coronavirus cases fall, eyes on northeastern province.

Ex Output:
China on Sunday reported 16 new coronavirus cases but no deaths while authorities remained on guard against a major resurgence and monitored the spread of cases in Heilongjiang province.

Ex Input:
Paragraph: Costs are mentioned reasonablyearly in the story, and with specificity. This was goodto see. Benefits of these tests are touted, but not quantified. An officer of the National Ovarian Cancer Research Fund Alliance, an advocacy group, testifies that the outcomes of women who have surgery from a gynecologic oncologist"are much better." But we don't knowwhat that means. Is it longer survival? Later the story explainsthat combining the two blood tests with assessment by a clinician "better determined the patients who should be referred to a [gynecological oncologist], identifying well over 90 percent of the women who actually had cancer." (Note that this statistic reflects only referral to a gyn-onc, not patient survival.) But how does that compare to thestandard assessment tools? A 2016 study describedas publication "of the first clinical utility data" demonstrating that use of OVA1 resulted in referral of ovarian patients to gynecologic oncologists offers similar outcomes but is not mentioned in the story. We're told thatexperts fear that these tests could lead to unnecessary surgery or delayed diagnosis, and that's sufficient for a Satisfactory rating. The story could have delved into a bit more of the specifics: What is the evidencefor these concerns? What are the false positive and false negative rates? These details areusefulbecause the point of the story is that clinicians are not using these tests to try to improve outcomes of ovarian cancer patients. Are the possible debitsoruncertainties driven by lack of clinical datacontributing to these decisions? There isn't sufficient information on the evidence behindthese tests. The FDA has approved ROMA and OVA1 for use, but the studies that led to that decision are not discussed. Nor is there sufficient discussion of why the physician groups that write guidelines haven't endorsed the tests. Their concerns are raised, but the evidence is not presented or analyzed. A late diagnosis of ovarian cancer is way too common, and the outcome is grim. At the same time, the anecdotes seem to highlight the sad aspect of the disease without necessarily providing a relevant case in which the tests described would have helped (any more than a basic blood test would have). The companies responsible for developing and marketing these two tests are front and center in this story, with scientists affiliated with the companies clearly identified. At least two sources in the storyone of them a scientist affiliated with the National Comprehensive Cancer Networkappear to be independent of the companies. The story makes it clear that no effective early detection screening test exists. Existing strategiesthe CA125 blood test and vaginal ultrasoundare mentioned and then discounted, in part via a personal narrative of a young woman who received a late diagnosis of cancer. While data-driven specifics aren't included on why standard methods aren't sufficient, this is enough to rate Satisfactory. Adirect comparison ofsurvival stemming from existing diagnostic tests relative to survival stemming from ROMA and OVA1 would have strengthened the story. If those numbers aren't available, that should have been pointed out. The story makes it clear that the two blood tests have been available since 2009. The storymentions that the tests are combinations of existing tests with a "proprietary" formula (essentially a risk prediction tool) to translate the results to likelihood of cancer. But, the article should havetalked about whether the tests, other than CA-125, have been used before. This appears to be an enterprise story, and does not rely on a news release. Claim: Ovarian cancer blood tests: Available, not widely used

Ex Output:
This is a story about the apparent underuse of two blood testsROMA and OVA1that are FDA approved to help clinicians decide whether surgery toinvestigateabnormal growthsshould be performed by a gynecologic oncologist ("gyn-onc") trained to remove malignant ovarian cancer, rather than an obstetrician-gynecologist or a general surgeon. The gist of the story is that the tests have not been widely adopted in the ensuing years, "largely because they haven't been recommended by the physician groups that write the care guidelines." The story hit on a lot of important notesit told readers the cost of these tests, and it included comments from independent sources. What is not clear is the extent to which clinical evidence supports the increased use of the two tests. We're told they accurately picked up about 90 percent of cancer cases. But we're not told how that compares to standard methods of detection. As the story notes, surviving ovarian cancer is an uphill battleit is often a deadly disease caught too late. Any procedure that increases the probability of survival is worth careful consideration.

Ex Input:
Paragraph: In late February 2020, as a new coronavirus spread worldwide, a letter providing advice on avoiding a viral infection was shared and memed heavily. The letter is attributed to pathologist James Robb who described himself as "one of the first molecular virologists in the world to work on coronaviruses." The letter itself provides common-sense solutions to preventing disease transmission: 1) NO HANDSHAKING! Use a fist bump, slight bow, elbow bump, etc. 2) Use ONLY your knuckle to touch light switches. elevator buttons, etc.. Lift the gasoline dispenser with a paper towel or use a disposable glove. 3) Open doors with your closed fist or hip do not grasp the handle with your hand, unless there is no other way to open the door. Especially important on bathroom and post office/commercial doors. 4) Use disinfectant wipes at the stores when they are available, including wiping the handle and child seat in grocery carts. 5) Wash your hands with soap for 10-20 seconds and/or use a greater than 60% alcohol-based hand sanitizer whenever you return home from ANY activity that involves locations where other people have been. 6) Keep a bottle of sanitizer available at each of your home's entrances. AND in your car for use after getting gas or touching other contaminated objects when you can't immediately wash your hands. 7) If possible, cough or sneeze into a disposable tissue and discard. Use your elbow only if you have to. The clothing on your elbow will contain infectious virus that can be passed on for up to a week or more! The portion of the missive that garnered the most attention, however, was the pathologist's recommendation of zinc lozenges: Stock up now with zinc lozenges. These lozenges have been proven to be effective in blocking coronavirus (and most other viruses) from multiplying in your throat and nasopharynx. Use as directed several times each day when you begin to feel ANY "cold-like" symptoms beginning. It is best to lie down and let the lozenge dissolve in the back of your throat and nasopharynx. Cold-Eeze lozenges is one brand available, but there are other brands available. This portion of the letter apparently resulted in memes suggesting the product Cold-Eeze was a "silver bullet" that would "kill coronavirus": We reached out to Robb to ask if he was the author of this letter. Via email, he told us that he did indeed write it, but that it was never meant to be for anyone besides family and close friends, and that it was not intended to be an advertisement for any specific product: It was my email to my family and close friends ONLY. Someone put it on their Facebook page. It was intended to be a monologue not a dialogue. I do not use any social media and may have been too naive about what "sharing" means today. Claim: A letter providing tips on how to protect against the new coronavirus was authored by pathologist James Robb.

Ex Output:
His history with coronaviruses is accurately recounted. In the late 1970s, as professor of pathology at the University of California, San Diego, Robb published some of the earliest descriptions of coronaviruses. He also published a book chapter on this class of viruses for "Comprehensive Virology."