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.

Let me give you an example: Paragraph: "Although the story didn't cite the cost of appendectomy emergency or urgent surgery and we wish it had, we nonetheless will give it a satisfactory score because it at least cited what the editorial writer wrote, ""A secondary benefit is the savings to the hospital generated by minimizing staff and anesthesiologist presence late in the evening and during the wee hours of the morning."" As with our harms score above, although the story didn't give absolute numbers, in this case we think it was sufficient for it to report that ""The scientists found no significant difference among the groups in the patients' condition 30 days after surgery or in the length of their operation or hospital stay."" Although the story didn't give absolute numbers, in this case we think it was sufficient for it to report that ""The scientists found no significant difference among the groups in the patients' condition 30 days after surgery or in the length of their operation or hospital stay."" Despite running less than 300 words, this story did an adequate job in explaining the quality of the evidence, including pointing out limitations. No disease-mongering here. The story meets the bare minimum requirement for this criterion in that it at least cited what an editorial stated. The focus of the story was on a study comparing emergency appendectomy with surgery done up to 12 hours later or beyond. This is the whole focus of the story and one we applaud when it begins: ""Appendectomy is the most common emergency surgery in the world, but it doesn't have to be."" There were no claims made about the novelty of this research, and we may have wished for a bit more context on this. Nonetheless, the potential for guiding future care decisions was made clear. Not applicable. Given that the story only pulled excerpts from the journal article and the accompanying editorial, and didn't include any fresh quotes from interviews, we can't be sure of the extent to which it may have been influenced by a news release.". Claim: Some appendicitis cases may not require 'emergency' surgery
The answer to this example can be: We really don't understand why only a handful of mainstream news organizations reported this story. (At least in what we found.) The most common emergency surgery in the world. Rushing to emergency surgery may not carry any benefit. Waiting a few hours may be safer and less expensive. Why is that not a story? We applaud USA Today for finding time and space and clearly it didn't need to free up much space to do a good job telling the story. The story explains that as many as 300,0 appendectomies are done each year in the US. That figure alone explains why this is an important study to report.
Here is why: The output is an analysis of the claim while considering the paragraph as a reference. The output highlights the key features presented in the paragraph and explains the claim accordingly.

OK. solve this:
Paragraph: Costs were not mentioned, but since the story is about an early vaccine trial (one that showed the vaccine to have less than desirable effectiveness), we think cost is not applicable in this case. The benefit of treatment, immune responsiveness to bird flu, was accurately reported as occurring in 54% of those receiving the highest dose of the vaccine administered. In presenting the lack of harms associated with even the high doses of antigen needed to trigger the desired immune response, the article included an important caveat about elderly individuals typically faring worse than the healthy young people tested. This article did a good job of summarizing the results of the current study that 54% of those getting the highest dose appeared to mount an immune response to this strain of flu as compared with 75-90% of those receiving typical winter-flu vaccine having a similar immune response (and at a dose that is 12 times lower than that needed to attain this level of immunity with bird-flu). In some ways this story avoided a hysterical tone when discussing a possible bird flu pandemic. But it did include a picture of workers in hazmat suits and if offered the calculation that with the current iteration of vaccine it would be possible to fully immunize a mere 1.25% of the population when a portion of that population has never been vaccinated against the flu. This threw off the otherwise well-maintained balance of the report on this potential public health issue. Quotes from an accompanying editorial, a member of the panel monitoring the vaccine's safety and the head of National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease of the National Institutes of Health augment the information presented in the article in the New England Journal of Medicine upon which the story was based. The article mentions ongoing studies with the goal of improving the vaccine so that protection against bird flu could be accomplished with loser doses. This article reported on what it terms 'the first human testing' of vaccine against the bird flu. While mentioning other studies underway, and not explicitly stating that this vaccine is not currently available to the public, a thread throughout the piece made it clear that vaccine against this strain of flu was still a work in progress. This article reported on the efficacy of the first vaccine against the bird flu which has been added to the nation's vaccine stockpile. Does not appear to rely solely or largely on a press release. Claim: 1st Bird-Flu Vaccine Only Partly Effective
Answer:
This is an informative summary on the results of the trial of the vaccine against the bird flu stockpiled by the U.S. government as a first step toward a preventative measure against a virulent though not yet highly contagious flu among humans. This article did a good job of summarizing the results of the current study that 54% of those getting the highest dose appeared to mount an immune response to this strain of flu as compared with 75-90% of those receiving typical winter-flu vaccine having a similar immune response (and at a dose that is 12 times lower than that needed to attain this level of immunity with bird-flu). In presenting the lack of harms associated with even the high doses of antigen needed to trigger the desired immune response, the article included an important caveat about elderly individuals typically faring worse than the healthy young people tested. Good use of multiple sources.