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: "Accusations about the responsible party behind the United States' struggle to accelerate coronavirus testing have come from every which way and the blame has fallen, often inaccurately, on the shoulders of different public officials. In a March 13 tweet, President Donald Trump said the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention studied its testing system for decades but wasn't prepared for a large scale pandemic, an issue that was complicated by policy changes made by former President Barack Obama. U.S. Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., retweeted Trump's remark and added his own comment: ""Trump is once again trying to blame the previous administration for the number of tests available. This is his #DailyLie."" U.S. Rep. Dan Crenshaw, R-Houston, retweeted Schumer's remark and said: ""It's not Obama's fault and it's not Trump's fault. We have stringent FDA regulations, long in place, that created barriers to the private industry creating a test quickly."" PolitiFact looked at a different Trump claim blaming Obama for a lack of testing. We also looked at a claim from Democrat Joe Biden about the Trump administration rejecting tests from the World Health Organization (they were never offered). Trump also inaccurately stated that any individual who wants to be tested for the coronavirus can get a test. We wanted to dig deeper into Crenshaw's claim, which attributes the delays in the availability of widespread testing to Food and Drug Administration regulations. Justin Discigil, spokesman for Crenshaw, pointed to articles from ProPublica, the New Yorker, The Atlantic and the Washington Post, all of which highlighted the role FDA regulations played here. He added: ""Just to be clear nowhere did we say that these regulations were the sole/only reason for the testing issue, we said that they created barriers."" A timeline of events The first confirmed case of COVID-19 in the United States came at the end of January, when a man in Washington state developed symptoms after returning from a trip to Wuhan. One month later, federal health officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said it was inevitable that the U.S. would experience a spread of the virus and urged people to take precautions. In these early days of the virus, tests were not widely distributed to local and state laboratories. Instead, testing for the new coronavirus was conducted almost entirely by the CDC samples collected at the local level were sent to the agency. Initial test kits developed by the CDC for use in local and state labs were flawed and produced inaccurate results in some labs, meaning they couldn't be distributed. As the agency worked to correct the tests, health officials turned to the FDA. The U.S. Association of Public Health Laboratories submitted a letter asking the agency to use ""enforcement discretion"" and authorize local and state labs to develop and use their own tests. During a public health emergency, labs and drug manufacturers must seek an Emergency Use Authorization from the FDA to use diagnostic tests and medical treatments that have not gone through the typical clearance process to share them faster in the emergency. (These authorizations were begun in 2004 under President George W. Bush.) For laboratory-developed tests, like the ones in question, FDA policy has stated that they cannot be used in clinical diagnoses without the FDA's approval during an emergency. Although the goal of these regulations is to ensure only accurate lab tests are conducted, health officials have said they prevented them from quickly responding to the virus. One doctor in a Seattle lab described the process for getting an Emergency Use Authorization from the FDA and said the agency asked for a level of testing that didn't make sense in the context of an emergency, according to a GQ profile. A doctor in North Carolina told NBC News that she had developed a test using the World Health Organization's protocol but had yet to receive the use authorization from the FDA, putting the state ""way behind"" in its ability to test patients. On Feb. 29, the FDA announced a change in the process: Labs would still need to seek the agency's approval for their tests, but the labs could begin testing while waiting for the official green light. On March 16, (three days after Crenshaw made his claim) the FDA announced another change to its policies and put state officials in charge of coronavirus tests developed by laboratories in their states, meaning labs would engage with state officials and not the FDA. It also removes the requirement for these labs to apply for an Emergency Use Authorization for their tests. The changes also expand which labs and manufacturers are included in FDA guidelines and which kinds of tests can be developed. ""We believe the unprecedented policy set forth in today's updated guidance, which addresses laboratories and commercial manufacturers, will help address these urgent public health concerns by helping to expand the number and variety of diagnostic tests, as well as available testing capabilities in health care settings, and reference and commercial laboratories,"" reads a release from the agency. After the changes After the FDA announced changes to its policies, Labcorps and Quest Diagnostics both announced plans to start testing for the new coronavirus, crediting changes in federal policy with their ability to do so. ""We applaud the FDA for providing the flexibility for innovative, quality lab developed tests to be brought to patients and providers quickly to advance effective response to the coronavirus outbreak,"" said Steve Rusckowski, chairman and chief executive officer of Quest Diagnostics, in a statement. But even as state and local authorities move to ramp up testing, the number of available tests is still lacking. In Austin, for example, there is still a gap between available test kids and demand for testing, as officials prioritize testing for health care workers, people living in nursing homes and people at high risk for complications from the virus. Our Ruling Crenshaw said in a tweet that longstanding FDA regulations ""created barriers to the private industry creating a test quickly"" for the coronavirus. Crenshaw's statement is accurate. FDA procedures adopted in 2004 meant laboratories had to seek the agency's approval before developing and using tests in communities, a policy many health care officials have said prevented the country from taking early action in response to the novel coronavirus. It is important to keep in mind that other factors have contributed to the low levels of testing for the virus, beyond the FDA regulations. But Crenshaw's statement is accurate." Claim: Dan Crenshaw Says longstanding Food and Drug Administration regulations "created barriers to the private industry creating a test quickly" for the coronavirus.

Ex Output:
Food and Drug Administration regulations in place since 2004 require labaratories to get an Emergency Use Authorization from the agency to use diagnostic tests and medical treatments that haven't gone through the typical clearance process. The policy was intended to speed up the process, but researchers reported significant delays between seeking an application and getting approval and these regulations played a role in that. The FDA has since changed the regulations to allow labs to start utilizing tests before receiving clearance.

Ex Input:
Paragraph: The governor, who is also a pediatric neurologist, worked to comfort victims of Friday's shooting and their families, while helping coordinate the massive government response. He discussed the shooting with President Donald Trump in a private phone call, stood shoulder to shoulder with other elected officials at a news conference and pressed for tighter gun control to national audiences. The subject of widespread mockery after the racist photo from his medical school yearbook surfaced, the Democratic governor appears determined to project that he's up to the task. "Actions speak a lot louder than words. And I will have the leadership that's needed," Northam said in an interview with NPR after the shooting, while discussing potential plans to push for increased gun regulations. Police said 12 people were killed and several others injured when DeWayne Craddock, an engineer with the city's utilities department, opened fire inside a municipal building Friday afternoon. Northam quickly left Richmond after the shooting and drove to Virginia Beach, speaking to local, state and other officials on the way down to coordinate responses and share information. After a news conference Friday evening, Northam took a call from Trump to discuss the shooting, with the president offering the federal government's full support. Michael Berlucchi, a Virginia Beach City Council member, praised the governor and other officials for their work to address the shooting's aftermath from the city's emergency operations center. "Nobody carried their baggage into that room," Berlucchi said Sunday. "The only thing I saw was public servants coming together to address the worst tragedy in the history of our city." On Saturday, Northam attended a vigil at a church where he told those gathered that "God is in control." He visited a hospital to meet with survivors and thank doctors and staff. In broadcast interviews with national media, Northam stressed the need for action to prevent similar deadly shootings. "We lost 12 lives yesterday. If you look at the commonwealth of Virginia, we lost over 900 lives over the past two years to gun violence, gun-related accidents," Northam said on CNN. "So I will make decisions in the upcoming days but we need to look at our laws: are they safe, do they keep people protected in the Commonwealth of Virginia?" The governor has long been an advocate for stricter gun control. He made the issue a top priority of his 2017 gubernatorial campaign, drawing from his experience as a pediatrician and Army doctor who has treated children and soldiers wounded by firearms. But a package of bills Northam pushed this year, including legislation to limit gun magazine size and give local governments broader authority to ban guns in city buildings, went nowhere in a staunchly pro-gun Republican-controlled Virginia General Assembly. Northam hinted Saturday in media interviews that he may be considering some kind of executive action related to gun control efforts that would bypass the legislature, but his office declined to say what specific actions he may take. Any dramatic moves by the governor would face stiff resistance from his political opponents. Philip Van Cleave, president of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, said Northam doesn't have any real power to impose new gun limits and any efforts to do so would be an attempt to deflect attention away his scandal. "He'd be very happy to try and change the focus away from the blackface stuff," Van Cleave said. Northam has been battling for months to regain a sense of normalcy in office after a picture surfaced in February of man in blackface and another person wearing a Ku Klux Klan outfit on his medical school yearbook page. Northam has denied being in the picture, and investigators recently said they can't conclusively establish the identities of either person in the 35-year-old photo. The governor withstood widespread pressure for him to resign, which weakened after scandal soon enveloped his potential successors . Two women publicly accused Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax of sexual assault, which he denies, and Attorney General Mark Herring announced he'd also worn blackface in college, just days after calling on Northam to resign. Both Fairfax and Herring have also resisted calls to resign. Fairfax was also in Virginia Beach after the shooting. He attended a church service Sunday where and pledged to take "serious action" to prevent future mass shootings. "I think that thoughts and prayers from politicians are not enough," Fairfax said. "We've had too many thoughts and prayers over the years and we've not acted in the ways to prevent these mass shootings in the future." ___ This story has been corrected to say pediatrician, not pedestrian. ___ Contributors include Associated Press writer Ben Finley. Claim: Shooting poses Virginia governor's first test since scandal.

Ex Output:
Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam wasted little time getting to Virginia Beach after a gunman killed a dozen people in a city office building, the first major test of his leadership since a blackface scandal almost forced him from office four months ago.

Ex Input:
Paragraph: Again, no treatment is involved. Speculation about the relative costs of high red meat vs. high white meat diets would not be productive. The reporter does a fair job describing the study and the findings. The article includes such details as size of the study population, the duration of the study and the method of data collection. But, as already discussed, this kind of study can't establish cause-and-effect or risk. Just statistical associations. However, once it started describing risk, it did that incompletely as well. It compaes the relative risk of death by heart disease and cancer in the highest- vs. lowest-red meat consumption groups for both men and women. But the story suffers because it describes the findings only in terms of relative riskmen who ate the most red meat had a 27 percent higher risk of dying from heart disease compared to those who ate the least, for instance. But the story fails to put these percentages into context. In the example above, about 1.2 percent of the men who ate the most red meat died of heart disease during the 10-year study, compared to .06 percent of those who ate the least red meat Looking at male deaths by all causes, about 4 percent of the red meat group died, compared to about 2 percent of the least-red-meat group. Overall, about 13 percent of study participants died during the 10-year study. This is not to suggest the findings are insignificant. But reporters should always include absolute data to help readers understand the size of the risk an individual faces. (But , as already stated, risk language was risky in this story to begin with.) The story focuses plainly on the death risks of the diets studied. However, risks are stated only in relative terms, not in absolute terms. We won't penalize the story for that here, but we do under "quantification of benefits." The report is based on results of a large, prospective epidemiological dietary study. The reporter mentions the important caveats: that the study group may be healthier than the general adult population, and the data is based on self-reports of eating habits, which can be unreliable. We've already commented on the "association does not equal causation" issue, so we won't rule this criterion unsatisfactory for that flaw. Because the story confuses association with causation, it indeed does commit disease-mongering repeatedly. It may frighten readers into thinking that cause-and-effect has been established when, in fact, only a statistical association has been established. For example, the story says: It's a common pitfall of such stories. Association does not equal causation. It's not journalists who get it wrong. Scientists and physicians commonly express this incorrectly. But that doesn't make it acceptable. Most stories we saw on this study stated this incorrectly. The reporter does an excellent job sourcing the story. Sources include The reporter gets extra points for including two industry sources. While their thoughts appear very late in the story, including them both makes the story seemand actually bemore credible. There are no financial conflicts to report. In several places, the article appropiately indicates that limiting red meat in the diet may improve health. The reporter carefully avoids implications that more extreme options, such as a meatless diet, would cut death risk more. This is a study of subjects' voluntary diets, so no "treatment" is involved. The story makes no claims for the novelty of this kind of research or this general finding. In the second paragraph the report states that these findings "bolster[s] prior evidence" about the risks of diets high in red meat. Given the number of sources cited, the story does not appear to rely on the Archives of Internal Medicine press release or any other news release. Claim: Study: Lots of red meat increases mortality risk

Ex Output:
This story covers a big study that reports a statistical association between a diet high in red meat and a higher death rate. The report does a number of things well: It indicates early on that the results support previous findings and current recommendation about red meat, while adding new data. It quotes a variety of sources, including two self-interested representives of the meat industry who question the findings. This attention to the opposition enhances rather than undercuts the report's credibility. It translates the findings into dinner-table terms: high consumption in this study is defined as about a quarter pound hamburger per day, low is 5 ounces per week. That's really useful to readers. The report has two significant shortcomings. The language of the story e.g., "lots of red meat increases mortality risk" suggests that cause-and-effect has been established when this kind of observational study simply CAN NOT establish causation. It can only point to statistical association. The story never made that clear. So even discussing "risk" is an overstatement. Then, when choosing to discuss "risk," it used only relative data ["a 22 percent lower risk of death" by cancer for low-red eaters, for example], not the absolute data [1.3 percent compared to .06 percent]. But once the story started using "risk" terminology without explaining that cause-and-effect and risk cannot be firmly established by such a study, it had already missed the mark. We know we hold the bar high with this expectation that stories explain the quality of the evidence. But it is not simply splitting hairs; it is inaccurate to use language that does not fit the evidence. Journalists and should consumers should review the excellent guest column by Mark Zweig and Emily DeVoto, entitled "Does The Language Fit the Evidence? Association Versus Causation." One of our medical editors wrote to me about this topic: "I can tell you, the average practicing physician (one of the presumed target audiences for the medical literature) has a less than firm grasp of this difference! I have been teaching evidence-based medicine for years, and it seems that our residents finally get this by the end, but I don't think it's a skill that was routinely taught in medical training before the past decade or two, nor one that sticks with most docs." None of this denigrates the importance of the study or the quality of the work. But all studies have limitations and news about research should explain those limitations.