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: The Georgia Department of Public Health said it is still awaiting final confirmation from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the Floyd County case. The 46-year-old woman went to the emergency care center on Feb. 29, but didn't meet testing criteria for COVID-19 and was released, Floyd Medical Center said in a statement. She returned, with worsening symptoms, on Tuesday. But she still didn't quality for testing. "Despite the patient, again, not meeting COVID-19 screening criteria, Floyd clinicians made the determination to admit her to the hospital due to her condition," the hospital statement said. For a time, testing was limited, in part because CDC guidelines said it should be focused on travelers who had been to mainland China or to patients who had been in close contact with infected people. Last week, the CDC changed its criteria, saying it's also appropriate to test a patient if flu and other respiratory illnesses have been ruled out and no source of exposure has been identified. The patient was isolated, officials said. Though she still didn't meet the criteria for coronavirus testing, her doctor and the district health director for the region pushed for it, the hospital said. At the "adamant urging" of the two local health officials, the CDC and the state health agency authorized the testing. The initial testing that returned a positive result was completed Thursday, state health officials said. State officials have requested expedited processing for an official determination from the CDC, Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp said in a statement Friday. Officials haven't disclosed where the woman went or who she might have been in contact with in the three days between her two visits to the emergency room. However, state health officials are now working to identify any people who might have been exposed, the agency said in statement. Floyd County is about 70 miles (115 kilometers) northwest of Atlanta. If confirmed, it would be the third case of COVID-19 in Georgia. The state's first case was a 56-year-old Fulton County man who had traveled to Atlanta from Milan, Italy on Feb. 22. He began showing symptoms of the disease a few days later, health officials said earlier this week. The man's teenage son also tested positive for the disease. ___ The Associated Press receives support for health and science coverage from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Department of Science Education. The AP is solely responsible for all content. Claim: Woman who went to hospital twice tests positive for virus.
A:
A woman who went to a Georgia emergency center with flu-like symptoms late last month has tested positive for COVID-19 by the state health lab, officials said Friday.