Given a paragraph, generate a claim that is supported by the given paragraph. 1) The claim must contain information from within the paragraph. 2) A sentence within the paragraph can be used as a claim. 3) The claim should not have contradictions within the paragraph. 4) The claim should be at most one sentence long.
--------
Question: "Like its competitors, the Times did not discuss costsanomissionwhich perhaps is more acceptable in this story since it clearly indicated that this is not very close to being a marketable product. Nevertheless, we would have liked to have seen some mention of the financial impact. Many patients with type 1 diabetes are not using currently available pumps and sensors because of the high cost of these devices. It seems likely that this new treatment, if it ever becomes widely available, will be as expensive or more so than the current pump and sensor technology. We applaud the Times for avoiding the term ""artificial pancreas"" in the headline and using it sparingly in the body of the story. The competing stories couldn't resist it. We can understand whymarketers and media relations people would favor this term because of its promotional value, but we don't think it's agood way to describe this technology in an objective piece of journalism. ""Artificial pancreas"" is misleading because we're not really anywhere close tobeing able to replicate what the normal human pancreasdoes through artificial technology. Forgetting for a momentthat the pancreas does much morethan simply dispense insulin (it alsoproduces a number of other hormones anddigestive enzymes that aren't impacted by diabetes),what's more important is how the pancreas worksin concert withthe brain and other systems to regulateglucose in a very tight range. The normal human pancreas starts releasinginsulin beforewe eat in response to complex environmental cues, whereas any artificial system would need tobe told thatmeal is coming or react to therise in glucose after thefact. Plus,insulinproduced by the bodystarts acting rightaway, whereas insulin analogues take about 20 minutes to takeeffect. Put this all together and we see that the ""artificial pancreas"" will, for the foreseeable future, require human intervention to predictpost-mealinsulin needs and dosing or else patients will be at risk of post-meal blood sugar spikes. And it's not at all clear that such a systemwill improve overall bloodsugar management compared with existing methods. The term""artificial pancreas"" conjures up a vision of totally automated glucose management and essentially a ""cure"" for type 1 diabetes. This isoverselling what the technology can do. The Times waited until the last 3 paragraphs of an 1,100-word story to hintthat an automated system could deliver unsafe doses of insulin. It isn't until the last sentence thatwe learn that the system would need to be ""exquisitely reliable"" in order to be safe. We feel the story should have raised these issues earlier and that it could have done more to emphasize just how difficult itwill befor any device to calculate insulin requirements on the fly. Insulin dosingis affected byfactorsranging from how much aperson has exercised to whatand how much they have eaten. It's conceivable that technology can account for all of these variables,but there are a lot ways thingscould go wrong, with potentially deadly results. It's a close call, butwe don't feel thestorydid enough to call attention to these issues. In contrast to its competitors, which allled readersto believe there had been a fully automated system sensing glucose levels and dispensing insulin to the participants in this study, the Times noted thatthe insulin was dispensed by a nurse based oncalculations made by a computer algorithm. The Times clearly indicated that the significance of this test was as a ""proof of concept"" that the algorithm works and is safe, not as a test of any specific device. It noted that a fully automated system combining glucosemonitoring and insulin delivery was still ""hypothetical."" In addition,the Times story wasthe only one to draw attention to the small size of this study and the fact the findings were not statistically significant for the primary outcomes. This noteofcaution was completely lacking from the competingcoverage. The story did not exaggerate the effects of type 1 diabetes. The story includes quotesfrom interviews with one of the study investigators and another researcher, and identifies both as having ties to diabetes products manufacturers. It also quotes an analyst at an investment firm. It would have been better had theyincluded one more source who didn't have commercial ties to specific products. The story describes currently available technology for glucose monitoring and insulin infusion. It describes the limitations of current approaches for managing insulin, especially during the overnight period. The story is a bit misleading in that it leaves the impression that all type 1 diabetics are currently using pumps at night. This is not actually the case. Most people are doing self monitoring of blood glucose and making judgement calls on whether and how much insulin to administer. However, the story does enough for a satisfactory in our view. The Times did a good job of describing the system used in this study and how close it is to being commercially available. It called the system ""experimental""and said that it was ""notfully automated."" It said that a fullyautomated glucose monitor/insulindelivery system was still ""hypothetical"" and would face regulatory hurdles before it could be marketed to the public. The story describes the progression from skin prick glucose testing to continuous monitoring and insulin pumps. It places the new developments in this field on this continuum. There could have beenmore discussion of many of the recent advances that have made daytime hyper- and hypoglycemia less of a problem such asthe newer short-acting insulins. The story did not rely on any news release."

Answer: Insulin Study Could Lead to New Dosage Devices

Question: Attractions such as the Louvre Abu Dhabi museum and the Ferrari World theme park will be closed from March 15-31, the Abu Dhabi Government Media Office said, while the country's civil aviation authority indefinitely suspended flights to and from Lebanon, Turkey, Syria and Iraq from March 17. The UAE, which has reported 85 coronavirus infections but no deaths, and other Gulf Arab states are intensifying measures to halt the virus as the number of cases rises. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait have taken the most drastic steps, cancelling all international flights. Dubai, the UAE's regional business and transit hub, said it was cancelling all events planned in March and asked hotels to stop hosting wedding celebrations. Some shops have voluntarily closed to boost containment efforts. In the capital, Abu Dhabi, cinemas, arcades and entertainment venues have been shuttered, state news agency WAM reported. Seeking to soften the impact of the shutdowns on key sectors such as tourism and transportation, the central bank said its program would help banks and companies weather the crisis. Saudi Arabia also announced $13 billion to support small and medium enterprises. Saudi Arabia, which reported 17 new cases on Saturday bringing its total to 103, said two-week flight suspensions would start on Sunday, while Kuwait did not specify a length for its grounding which began on Saturday. Saudi Arabia has already suspended the Umrah pilgrimage and locked down its eastern Qatif region where many infections are located. On Saturday, it also closed popular family entertainment zones located inside many shopping malls. Health ministry spokesman Mohammed Abdelali urged the population of 30 million to avoid gathering in public, minimize movements and stay at home as much as possible. "(Such) measures slow the growth of cases so that we can control it, while the countries that take delayed measures experience fast growth which the health systems cannot deal with," he told reporters. The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), a group of six oil-rich Arab monarchies which also includes Qatar, Bahrain and Oman, has reported nearly 900 coronavirus cases, mostly in people who had traveled to Iran or who been infected by visitors to Iran. No deaths have been reported in the GCC, unlike Iran where the toll rose by nearly 100 on Saturday to 611, out of 12,729 total infections. Oman, with the lowest number of infections in the region at 20, said on Saturday all schools and educational institutions would close for a month, a precaution also taken by other GCC states and Yemen. Saudi Arabia and Oman canceled all sporting events until further notice, state media said. The UAE will stop issuing visas, except for foreign diplomats, from March 17, WAM reported, citing immigration authorities. Qatar will halt the issuance of visas upon arrival to a number of European nationalities from Sunday, the government communication office said, while the Qatar Olympic Committee suspended all local sports activities until March 29. Qatar confirmed 17 new infections on Saturday, bringing the total number of cases to 337, the highest in the GCC, followed by Bahrain with 211 and Kuwait with 104. Gulf health authorities have stepped up pleas to avoid gatherings and are sanitizing public places. Police in Kuwait used drones fitted with loudspeakers to urge people on the streets to avoid gathering. Health Minister Basel Al-Sabah said on state television: "I urge you by God to stay at home." The competing sides in Yemen's civil war announced airport closures including in the capital Sana'a, a measure that will affect flights operated by United Nations organizations taking part in humanitarian relief efforts.

Answer: UAE cancels events, flights as central bank announces coronavirus fiscal plan.

Question: "Because we deal with lots of loose rhetoric at PolitiFact Ohio, we're attracted like a magnet to any claim that tries to actually quantify a political or ideological point. Ohio U.S. Sen. Rob Portman delivered such a tidbit during a conference call with Ohio reporters on May 23. Portman was explaining a bill he co-introduced that could require additional cost-benefit analysis and allow more business flexibility before new federal regulations and rules could be issued. Portman says too many government regulations are imposed without a commonsense assessment of their burden on businesses and jobs. And he said that President Barack Obama's administration has put out ""more of these major rules than the Clinton administration or the Bush administration during comparable times."" We won't attempt to assess whether current and pending regulation of the environment, worker and food safety, healthcare, wildlife or fuel efficiency are good or government overkill. But has the Obama administration finalized more of these ""major"" rules than other recent presidents? That part of the claim is measurable and has, in fact, been examined by groups of all political stripes, all using the same sources of government data. If all regulations were counted, Obama's record would be nowhere near Portman's description, especially considering a sizeable flurry of rulemaking during Bill Clinton's first two years, as the liberal group OMB Watch, now known as the Center for Effective Government, said in a report last September. In fact, when 2012 Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney claimed that federal regulations quadrupled under Obama, PolitiFact ruled it False. But Portman said ""major"" rules."" ""Major"" has a specific meaning when used by the government in this context. It means any rule with an economic impact of at least $100 million. And the White House Office of Management and Budget, or OMB, keeps track of these very rules, as does the Government Accountability Office. OMB calls them ""economically significant"" rules, which also has a distinct definition but is so close to ""major"" that there is no need to split hairs here. We looked at three analyses of major or economically significant rules, all broken down by year and presidency and all using OMB data. One was provided by Portman's Senate staff, which is familiar with the data because Portman used to run OMB. Another was from the Regulatory Studies Center at George Washington University, headed by Susan Dudley, a former regulatory affairs administrator at OMB. A third was from the Center for Effective Government. Portman's office compared rules that were finalized in the first three years of Obama's tenure with the first three of Clinton's and George W. Bush's. To guard against counting rules finalized by one administration but published by another, it excluded those that were published in the first few weeks of an incoming president's term. Portman's staff counted only executive branch departments and agencies and not those of independent agencies that do not report to the president. It found 162 major rules for Obama, 115 for the same period under Bush, and 135 for the same period under Clinton. A similar analysis by George Washington University's Regulatory Studies Center had a similar conclusion, though the raw numbers were slightly different from Portman's because of a technical variation in the timeframes counted. Among other things, the analysis counted every year the presidents served, allowing for comparisons of first and second terms for Clinton and Bush and the full four years of Obama's first term. This made no substantive difference in terms of Portman's claim. It showed that Obama still had more economically significant rules -- 217 in his first four years, compared with the next highest, 190, in Bush's second term. Finally, there was the data from the Center for Effective Government, nee OMB Watch. Last September, it examined new regulations since 1992, and found the level fairly constant across presidencies, save for Clinton's first years. But when it came to regulations labeled as economically significant, Obama's record for the first 42 months of his presidency was 38 percent higher than the comparable period of Bush's first term and 36 percent higher than the comparable period in Clinton's. In an interview and in her report, Randy Rabinowitz, director of regulatory policy at the Center for Effective Government, cautioned that some of these comparisons can be misleading because the ""major"" rule threshold of $100 million has not changed since 1978, despite inflation. A rule costing $100 million in 1993, the first year of Clinton's presidency, would cost $161 million today, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics' online inflation calculator. We know of no analysis of regulations that has taken this into account. Rabinowitz also noted that many regulations grow directly out of laws passed by Congress or ordered by courts, so presidents are not merely riding roughshod over the will of lawmakers or the public. Some of Obama's biggest rules resulted from court rulings dating to Bush, with courts requiring environmental regulation after Bush balked. But Obama's share of these or similar statutory or judicially required rules -- 48 percent of all the rules his administration finalized -- was not much different from the share Clinton had to deal with in his first term, nor the share Bush had in his second term. This doesn't change the facts or statistics as stated by Portman: The Obama administration has put out ""more of these major rules than the Clinton administration or the Bush administration during comparable times."""

Answer:
The Obama administration has put out "more of these major rules than the Clinton administration or the Bush administration during comparable times.