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.

Example input: 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
Example output: 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.
Example explanation: 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.
Q: Paragraph: A total of 17,127 people have died from the virus in Italy, the most anywhere in the world, with Lombardy accounting for 55% of the tally. The region also accounts for 39% of the country's 135,586 confirmed cases. The particularly large death toll in Lombardy, the wealthiest region in Italy, has raised eyebrows, with local officials suggesting that both the high urban density and considerable elderly population might have played a part. However, a damning letter by senior doctors, including the heads of 11 provincial health authorities within Lombardy, said failures in the region's health system had exacerbated the greatest emergency Italy has faced since World War Two. Amongst the failings they highlighted was a lack of protective clothing for medical staff - a regular source of anger since the outbreak emerged on Feb. 21. "This determined the death of many colleagues, the illness of many of them and the probable and involuntary spread of the contagion, especially in the early stages of the epidemic," said the letter, which was posted on the website of the national federation of doctors, surgeons and orthodontists. The federation says 94 medics have died in the outbreak, many in Lombardy, which is run by the far-right League party. There was no immediate comment from Lombardy officials. The medics bemoaned an "absence of strategies" in tackling the crisis, a lack of good data and limited testing as the virus spread. This "greatly underestimated the number of patients and, to a lesser extent, the number of dead", they wrote. While the neighbouring region of Veneto engaged in widespread testing in a known coronavirus hotspot, Lombardy only tested the seriously ill arriving for treatment in hospital, saying they did not have the capacity for wider checks. The letter took aim at the management of nursing homes, where hundreds of people have died without ever being tested. The doctors said in the province of Bergamo alone, 600 of the 6,000 pensioners under care had died. Italy's health ministry announced on Tuesday it was sending inspectors to Milan's largest nursing home, Pio Albergo Trivulzio, where more than 100 people have died since March. A photograph of nine bodies in the home's mortuary was published on the front page of La Repubblica newspaper on Tuesday, with another showing its chapel full of coffins. Lombardy's top health official, Giulio Gallera, rejected media allegations that the region had allowed hospitals to send infected patients to local care homes without proper protection in an effort to free up badly needed space in packed wards. "We always acted for the good of everyone in an extraordinary emergency and we will not let anyone cast aspersions on the serious, rigorous work we have carried out," he said on Facebook. He did not refer to the doctors' letter. Italy's healthcare system is decentralized with regions having control over the money that goes to hospitals within their own borders. Lombardy has focused on developing a dual private-public network of high-performing hospitals, but critics say this was done at the expense of grassroots medical care. "Public health and on-the-ground medicine have been neglected and weakened in our region for many years," the doctors said. "It is going to be difficult to recover from this situation at the moment," they wrote, adding that as a starting point, the region should undertake large scale testing of health workers. Claim: Italian doctors slam failings in Lombardy coronavirus response.
A:
Doctors in Lombardy, the Italian region hardest hit by the coronavirus epidemic, have criticised local officials for their handling of the crisis and said the mistakes they made should be a lesson for everyone.