Given a paragraph and a claim, classify it this way: If the claim contradicts the evidence present in the paragraph, classify the claim as '0'. If the claim has multiple supporting *AND* contradicting evidences, classify the claim as '1'. If the claim has supporting evidence and the paragraph is in overall favor of the claim, then classify the claim as '2'.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: "The enemy is the virus and now we have to do our utmost to protect our people and to protect our economies," European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said after the second videoconference in a week of the European Union's 27 leaders. "We are ready to do everything that is required. We will not hesitate to take additional measures as the situation evolves." Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte, whose country has been hardest hit by a global health crisis now centered in Europe, said no nation would be left untouched by the "tsunami". He called for special "coronavirus bonds", or a European guarantee fund, to help member states finance urgent health and economic policies, an Italian government source said. Rome has issued similar calls for joint EU funding during previous crises, usually running into opposition from the bloc's most powerful economy and paymaster, Germany. Asked about Conte's proposal, Chancellor Angela Merkel said euro zone finance ministers would continue discussing ways to help their economies cushion the impact, but no decision has been made. "These are initial discussions and there have been no decisions by the finance ministers," said Merkel. "I will talk to (Finance Minister) Olaf Scholz so that Germany continues to take part (in the discussions). But there are no results regarding this." The EU has scrambled to find a coherent response to the outbreak, with countries imposing their own border checks in what is normally a zone of control-free travel, limiting exports of medical equipment or failing to share key data swiftly. The national leaders agreed on Tuesday to close the external borders of most European countries for 30 days and establish fast-track lanes at their countries' frontiers to keep medicines and food moving. Ireland will not join the travel ban on Europe's borders, von der Leyen said, because the United Kingdom - which left the EU in January - was not either. Despite Brexit, the two have an obligation to preserve an open border on the island of Ireland. Should Ireland go with the majority of European countries while the UK stays away, it would mean erecting controls on the sensitive border with Northern Ireland, something sides sought to avoid at all cost in three years of tortuous Brexit divorce talks. France went into lockdown on Tuesday to contain the spread of the highly contagious new coronavirus and Belgium announced it would follow suit, as the death toll in Italy jumped above 2,000, European banks warned of falling incomes and pummeled airlines pleaded for government aid. The EU's executive European Commission warned member states that this was just the beginning of the crisis and Germany said it would run for "months rather than weeks", diplomats said. Alarmed by the unilateral border restrictions being imposed in a bloc that prizes the free movement of people, French President Emmanuel Macron had pressed for the decision to close Europe's external borders to foreigners. "That was meant to convince European countries to drop internal and unilateral border moves. But it's hard to see anyone doing it," an EU diplomat said, adding the move was largely symbolic as the virus was already within. Indeed, tensions over borders still abounded across the EU, with three Baltic countries - Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia - criticizing Poland for blocking their citizens in transit from returning home. Portugal and Spain on Tuesday notified Brussels that they have introduced controls on Europe's internal borders, bringing the total taking such measures to at least 12 countries. Slovakia, Slovenia and Hungary have not formally informed the EU about such moves despite pursuing them, meaning the real number is likely higher. The EU has also moved to repatriate Europeans stranded abroad as airlines cut flights. Von der Leyen said nearly 300 Austrian and other European nationals were flown back from Morocco to Vienna on Tuesday. Their border control steps aside, the EU leaders have come together on a "whatever it takes" approach to cushioning the economic blow from the pandemic, including by relaxing limitations on state aid. The bloc's antitrust chief proposed allowing governments to offer grants or tax advantages of up to 500,000 euros ($550,000) to ailing companies, though some EU countries want Brussels to go further. (GRAPHIC-Tracking the spread of the novel coronavirus link: here) Claim: Europe grapples with 'socio-economic tsunami' of coronavirus crisis.
[EX A]: 2

[EX Q]: Paragraph: "Democrats savaged the Republican legislation, pushed by President Donald Trump and House Speaker Paul Ryan, that would replace Obamacare. ""Under 'Trumpcare,'"" U.S. Rep. Gwen Moore of Wisconsin declared in a May 4, 2017 news release, ""being a victim of domestic violence or sexual assault could be considered pre-existing conditions."" The claim by Moore, who has talked publicly about being a victim of domestic violence and sexual assault herself, cuts to one of the big fears around health care -- that having something that is considered a pre-existing condition means a person has to pay more for insurance, or could be denied coverage altogether. Typically, this refers to things such as diabetes or cancer. But sexual assault or domestic violence? Obamacare vs 'Trumpcare' The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) is the 2010 legislation adopted under President Barack Obama. It prohibits insurance companies from denying coverage -- or charging higher premiums -- because a person has a pre-existing medical condition. Under the American Health Care Act (sometimes called ""Trumpcare""), insurers would still be prohibited from denying coverage based on a pre-existing condition. The bill was narrowly approved by the House of Representatives and could be changed in the Senate. But in its current form, the bill would give states the option to allow insurers to charge people with pre-existing conditions higher prices. Republicans argue those people would be protected, because those states would have to set up high-risk pools to insure people with pre-existing conditions. But many analysts believe the law would still leave those people more vulnerable to cost increases that could make their plans unaffordable. (The day after the House passed the bill, GOP Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker said he would consider allowing insurers to charge higher prices. But later that day -- in an indication of how politically touchy the issue is -- he backed away from that comment after it drew criticism.) Pre-existing conditions Bloggers claimed that under the GOP bill, sexual assault is a pre-existing condition, which PolitiFact National rated . PolitiFact National spelled out what would happen under the GOP bill regarding sexual assault and experts told us that the same would apply to domestic violence. In a nutshell: The bill does not single out any specific medical event or diagnosis as a pre-existing condition. Conditions stemming from a sexual assault or domestic violence, such as post-traumatic stress disorder or certain sexually transmitted diseases, could be judged to be a pre-existing condition. States would have the option to allow insurers to charge higher prices to people with an existing condition, possibly making coverage unaffordable. Our rating Moore says that ""under 'Trumpcare,'"" the Republican replacement for Obamacare, domestic violence and sexual assault ""could be considered pre-existing conditions"" -- something that could trigger higher insurance prices for those victims. Moore's claim goes too far. Simply being a victim of domestic violence or sexual assault would not mean a person had a pre-existing condition. But it is important to know that conditions stemming from those assaults, such as post-traumatic stress disorder, could. For a statement that contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression, our rating is ." Claim: "Under 'Trumpcare,'"" domestic violence and sexual assault ""could be considered pre-existing conditions."
[EX A]: 0

[EX Q]: Paragraph: There is no mention of costs for the surgical implants or any of the other treatment methods. Whether insurers are likely to cover such treatments and whether they cover current treatment approaches would have been helpful information as well. The cost of medical devices needs to be considered for a host of reasons. A similar technology (vagal nerve stimulation) costs about $20,000 and could have been used as a useful example. No data on benefits are given for the "undisputed best treatment, called CPAP. " Regarding the new devices, because they are in early studies, any suggestion of benefit must be made carefully. While a number of provisos were included in the story, the single patient anecdote and the "What we're looking for is actually cure" quote from one of the investigators provide the reader with an imbalanced perspective. There is no mention of potential harms. This is troubling because the devices described would require a surgery. To be eligible for one of the devices, a person would need to undergo some fairly extensive testing, much of which is rather unpleasant, includinghaving "a tube snaked down the airway" to see whether their sleep apnea is being caused by a qualifying condition. The device is surgically implanted in the chest with wires run up the neck and into the base of the tongue. Once implanted the device now needs to be programmed to deliver the stimulation at the right time. There is a potential for nerve damage with long term use and the devices (as we have learned from the recent recall of heart defibrillator leads) are not infallible. There is no attempt to evaluate the quality of the evidence. We are given one anecdote of a man presumably enrolled in a clinical trial, but we don't learn how much research has been done only that a "key study" of 100 people is planned. There is also no evaluation of the evidence for "today's undisputed best treatment, called CPAP" only estimates of how many people won't or can't use it. This lead made us stop in our tracks. "Loud snoring may do more than irritate your spouse: It can signal sleep apnea, depriving you of enough zzzz's to trigger a car crash, even a heart attack." Car crashes and heart attacks? This sounds like a national emergency. The story goes on to say, "More than 12 million Americans have obstructive sleep apnea, according to the National Institutes of Health.Yet going untreated is more dangerous than just feeling tired. Sleep apnea stresses the body in ways that increase the risk of high blood pressure, heart attack, stroke and diabetes. More immediately, severe apnea increases the chance of a car crash sevenfold. Last year, the National Transportation Safety Board recommended that pilots, truck drivers and other commercial transportation operators start being screened for apnea, saying it has been a factor in incidents involving every mode of transit."How many incidents? Is sleep apnea more dangerous than, say, texting while driving? Without any context, these facts serve only to scare, not to inform. There are many quotes in this story but none comes from an independent source. Meir Kryger, a sleep medicine specialist at Gaylord Hospital in Connecticut, is the most quoted and is receiving money from Inspire Medical Systems, a device maker, for clinical trials. Rik Krohn, a 67-year-old from suburban Minneapolis (where the company is based how was he chosen?) is quoted as a sleep apnea sufferer who may have been helped by the Inspire device. We're not told what connection Dr. Rick Odland, Krohn's surgeon at Minneapolis' Hennepin County Medical Center, may have with the company. He is the co-founder of his own medical device company, Twin Star. There is apparently one independent perspective a voice of caution relegated to the very end in a two sentence paraphrase. "These experiments are only now beginning, with a handful of implants performed so farand while it's an interesting concept, frustrated patients should try some proven steps first, cautions, Dr. Amy Atkeson of Columbia University Medical Center in New York. Her advice: Don't give up on CPAP without first seeing an experienced sleep technician to adjust humidity levels and take other steps that not every CPAP prescriber knows to tryand if you're overweight or obese, apnea greatly improves with weight loss." The imbalance in the quotes provided, and the absence of any conflict of interest disclosure leads us to give an unsatisfactory score. The story does not do an adequate job comparing these devices to other treatments or to weight loss. The story ends with this brief statement: "Don't give up on CPAP without first seeing an experienced sleep technician to adjust humidity levels and take other steps that not every CPAP prescriber knows to tryand if you're overweight or obese, apnea greatly improves with weight loss." But, as noted, no data is given on CPAP's benefits only discussion of what doesn't work with CPAP. And no data were given only this one line about the role of overweight, obesity, and weight loss in sleep apnea. The story provides a very good overview of the ongoing trials of the various companies' devices and notes an upcoming clinical trial. The story makes it clear that there are several devices in competition to be the dominant sleep apnea device. "By the end of January, Minneapolis-based Inspire Medical Systems plans to begin enrolling 100 apnea patients in a key study in the U.S. and Europe to see if so-called hypoglossal nerve stimulation really could work. Two competitors are developing similar implants: ImThera Medical of San Diego says it hopes to begin U.S. studies later next year, and Apnex Medical of St. Paul, Minn., has announced some small-scale testing." The story does not rely on a news release. Claim: Experiments test if implant can block sleep apnea
[EX A]:
0