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: "In a regular feature called ""How the Left Destroys the Nation,"" a website founded by the leader of a far-right group posted this headline about one state's coronavirus response: ""Michigan Governor Bans Gardening, Sale Of Fruit and Vegetable Seeds, Gardening Supplies Prohibited."" The attack on Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, a Democrat who has been touted as a potential running mate for presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden, was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) That's because it's wrong. Whitmer has issued orders directing people to stay home and limiting some commercial activity, but this claim goes too far. The headline appears on the Geller Report, a website by Pamela Geller. She is an activist who co-founded Stop Islamization of America, also known as the American Freedom Defense Initiative. Below the headline is an article that originally appeared in The Daily Caller, a conservative-leaning publication, that reports on an executive order issued by Whitmer in response to the COVID-19 outbreak. The article does not say that the order bans gardening, but that it does restrict the sale of gardening supplies. In reality, executive order 2020-42, which went into effect April 9, 2020, requires larger stores to block off certain areas of their sales floors as a way of limiting the number of people in those stores. The order does not ban gardening or the sale of any product, including, as we mentioned in a previous fact-check, American flags. The numbers of coronavirus cases in Michigan have surged in recent weeks. As of April 14, the Wolverine State ranked fourth behind New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts, according to the New York Times. Nearly half of Michigan's cases are in Wayne County, which includes Detroit, according to Johns Hopkins University. Both the state and the county have a COVID-19 fatality rate of 6%. It's in that climate that Whitmer issued this order, subtitled the ""Temporary requirement to suspend activities that are not necessary to sustain or protect life,"" which extended and added to a stay-at-home order issued March 23. Tiffany Brown, a spokeswoman for the governor, told PolitiFact that Whitmer's order does not ban Michiganders from buying any item. The order says that stores larger than 50,000 square feet must close areas ""by cordoning them off, placing signs in aisles, posting prominent signs, removing goods from shelves, or other appropriate means that are dedicated to the following classes of goods: Carpet or flooring, furniture, garden centers and plant nurseries, and paint."" Referring to that restriction at a news conference announcing the order, Whitmer said: ""If you're not buying food or medicine or other essential items, you should not be going to the store."" As to gardening, a frequently asked questions document released by the governor's office states: ""The order does not prohibit homeowners from tending to their own yards as they see fit."" Grocery stores, of course, remain open. And neither the order nor the FAQs mention any restriction on the sale of fruit or seeds. A headline shared on social media inaccurately describes an order that Whitmer issued in response to the coronavirus. The order does not prohibit gardening or the sale of any particular product in Michigan. Stores in Michigan larger than 50,000 square feet must close areas for garden centers and plant nurseries, as well as those that sell carpet or flooring, furniture and paint." Claim: Facebook post Says Michigan COVID-19 order bans gardening and the sale of vegetable seeds and fruit.
[EX A]: 0

[EX Q]: Paragraph: 1.8 billion of 'new money' has been announced for the NHS over the next five years. 850 million has been announced for 20 hospitals over the next five years and 1 billion for the NHS in capital funding this year. The 1 billion is money that NHS trusts previously earned through a cost-cutting incentive scheme, but were then told not to spend. It is 'new' in the sense that the Treasury had not previously budgeted for them spending it. Claim 1 of 2 Claim: 1.8 billion of 'new money' has been announced for the NHS over the next five years.
[EX A]: 1

[EX Q]: Paragraph: "The story does not note the cost of a typical statin regimen, Zetia or the combination treatment, Vytorin. This is an important oversight as many people who are prescribed these medications take them for life. The story does mention that these new drugs ""raked in 5 billion dollars last year"". The failure of the combination product to be better than simvastatin alone has significant financial implications. Simvastatin (the generic name for Merck's Zocor) is available for about $1.25 a day. Vytorin costs about $3.35 a day. Most clinicians assumed that the combined product was an advantage if you could not get a patient to an LDL goal with just the statin alone or side effects with the simvastatin prevented an adequate dose. The price for the combination is less than the cost of the components. The story provides no quantitative data and no information on the number needed to treat to show benefit (i.e. prevention of a heart attack or stroke through lowered LDLs) in one patient with the newer medications, with traditional statins or with combination treatment. The story says that there are no real dangers to continuing the drugs Zetia and Vytorin based on the lower drop-out rate and reported side effects in the study. The comments from both parties cast an extraordinarily negative shadow on the study drug and on the company sponsors. Without an appropriate description of the study design, the results cannot be fairly discussed to the public. While the primary endpoint was not obtained with the combination, it did lower LDL and inflammatory markers in excess of that achieved with simvastatin alone. Suggesting the drug did not ""work"" is a bit of a mis-statement. The story encourages patients to keep taking these drugs. The story also does not mention the potential harm of taking statins long-term, especially in high does. Some of these harms are very rare, however, they include: muscle pain and kidney or liver problems. The story provides no real discussion of the data presented at the American College of Cardiology meeting and published in the peer-reviewed New England Journal of Medicine. And the story didn't assess the quality of the evidence. The study followed people (average age mid-40s) who had an inherited condition (called familial hypercholesterolemia) that is associated with very high cholesterol levels and greatly increased risk of early coronary artery disease. Many of them had been taking statins and other cholesterol-lowering medicines for years. All were randomly assigned to take either a statin (simvastatin, trade name Zocor) alone or a statin combined with another cholesterol-lowering medication, ezetimibe. The study was designed to find out if the combination of the two drugs could slow the growth of plaque in carotid arteries supplying the brain more than the statin alone. Plaque in these arteries is associated with an increased risk of stroke and heart attack. The two drugs together were more effective at lowering cholesterol than simvastatin alone, but adding ezetimibe did not change plaque measurements in the carotid arteries. The story does mention that lowering cholesterol may have other benefits, but we are not sure how those translate to fewer cardiovascular events or increased survival from these events. No overt disease-mongering. There are no interviews with the study authors or with practicing clinicians. The story reported on data presented at a recent American College of Cardiology Meeting, so there were several thousand cardiologists and other specialists available who could have been interviewed for clinical perspective on the results of this study. There was also no mention of the two accompanying editorials in the NEJM. The editorial by Brown and Tayor nicely identifies the issues related to the study and helps put the results into perspective. Unfortunately, this editorial was ignored by both parties involved in the story. Stating that taking more statins is the answer is incomplete at best. Lifestyle changes along with other drugs may be options as well. Interestingly however, this study raises questions about the simple notion that lowering total cholesterol, and LDL are important to lowering cardiovascular risk. People who are not able to lower their cholesterol enough with statins alone (or cannot tolerate the dose of statins needed to lower it) may wish to discuss with their doctor whether other medications (i.e., rather than ezetimibe) may be appropriate. These include niacin, fibrates, and bile acid resins. When added to statins, they can effectively lower cardiovascular risk. It's clear from the story that the drugs in question are still available to patients, though they should not be considered first-line therapy. The story focuses on new information that there is little to no benefit of newer cholestrol-lowering medications on the prevention of arterial plaque, which translate to little benefit for prevention of heart disease, stroke and cardiovascular-related death. We can't be sure if the story relied solely or largely on a news release. No researcher or cardiologist is interviewed. Quantified data from the American College of Cardiology presentation or from the New England Journal of Medicine article are not directly cited." Claim: Poor test results for heart drugs
[EX A]:
0