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.

Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: The California deaths were caused by a strain of the influenza virus that is sending sufferers across the nation to the doctor for flu-like symptoms at rates that are 50 percent higher than normal, said Lyn Finelli, head of the influenza surveillance and outbreak response team at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. "That's way above the norm for flu," Finelli said. "It tells us we're still in the middle of flu season, and in the Northeast and California it's going up, up, up." The flu strain responsible for the California deaths, H1N1, also predominates nationwide this year. It hits people hardest between the ages of 25 and 64, partly because some older people are believed to have more immunity due to similar outbreaks many decades ago. In California, 52 people died last week alone, including one child, the state's chief of communicable disease control told reporters on a conference call Friday. "This influenza season continues to be a severe one as the increasing number of influenza-related deaths indicates," Ron Chapman, director of the California Department of Public Health, said in a statement, urging Californians to get vaccinated. In addition to the 147 confirmed California flu-related fatalities this season among people under age 65, another 44 suspected flu deaths remain under investigation, said Dr. James Watt, chief of the state's Division of Communicable Disease Control. Most of those felled by the disease had other health conditions, but not all, he said. Last year at the same time, the state had recorded just 14 flu deaths among Californians under age 65. The death of a 47-year-old television advertising executive in the state's capital city prompted a renewed call for residents to become vaccinated against flu. Sacramento County, with 21 deaths so far, leads the state in fatalities. "After reading the heartbreaking story of Nancy Pinnella, went to CVS and got my first flu shot ever," California's first lady, Anne Gust Brown, posted on Twitter. It is not fully clear whether California is an outlier in the severity of its cases, because states are not required to report flu deaths to the CDC, and data is collected differently from state to state and county to county, said CDC spokesman Jason McDonald. The fatality data that the public health agency does collect, on pediatric deaths, is not useful in studying H1N1, because the virus is more likely to attack adults, Finelli said. The public health agency does, however collect information on why people go to the doctor, and whether they are hospitalized for flu. Those signs, she said, show that this year's flu is likely to continue to hit hard. Although the number of cases nationwide appears to have plateaued, she said, that does not take into account that California and the Northeast are lagging other areas with a late flu season. Meanwhile, CDC data does show that far more people under the age of 65 are being hospitalized with flu-like symptoms than last year. As of last week, for example, 76 percent of those hospitalized for flu were under age 65, compared to less than 50 percent last year. Nationwide, the data shows that somewhat fewer people have contracted flu so far this year than last year, Finelli said. This year's strain, however, appears to be causing severe illness in a population that is more typically robust, she said. Claim: California sees high rate of flu deaths in unusually severe season.

Output: An unusually severe flu season has claimed the lives of at least 147 young and middle-aged people in California - 10 times the number killed by influenza viruses by the same time last year, public health officials said on Friday.

Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: Ravalli County District Judge Jennifer Lint signed a temporary restraining order Friday that prohibits Gov. Steve Bullock and state health officials from enforcing emergency rules on flavored vaping products. They were set to take effect Tuesday. Lint was acting in response to a lawsuit filed Thursday by three vape shops and an industry group. They claim the 120-day ban is an overly restrictive reaction to a national outbreak of vaping-related illnesses and deaths they say is caused by illegal black-market products. Bullock's press secretary, Erin Loranger, told the Ravalli Republic that officials are reviewing the judge's ruling. The lawsuit was brought by the Montana Smoke Free Association, Freedom Vapes, Liberty Smoke and uBlaze Vapor said the ban could force more than 20 Montana businesses to close. The business owners said the pulmonary illnesses could be the result of the "illicit addition" of THC or marijuana products into legal vaping products. THC and marijuana are not included as ingredients in any of the products sold by the businesses involved in the lawsuit, according to the plaintiffs. The ban would not only harm the businesses, but also people who use e-cigarettes to quit tobacco products, the lawsuit said. In an affidavit filed in the lawsuit, Freedom Vapes owner Ron Marshall said that flavored vape juices comprise 95% of the products sold in his three stores and his business would not be able to survive without them. On Friday, he said that the lawsuit was about freedom and liberty. "If the governor can take away those liberties with a swipe of a pen, then what's next? If it's us today, who will it be tomorrow?" he said. Lint scheduled an Oct. 30 hearing to consider arguments about the future of the temporary ban. ___ Information from: Ravalli Republic , http://www.ravallirepublic.com Claim: Montana judge halts temporary flavored vaping ban.

Output: A temporary ban on the sale of flavored electronic cigarettes due to take effect next week in Montana has been blocked for now by a judge.

Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: "The Portland City Council is set to vote early next month on whether to fluoridate the city's drinking water -- and a 'yes' vote looks all but certain. City Commissioner Nick Fish said as much in a statement that started bluntly ""I believe it is time to add fluoride to Portland's drinking water."" Part of his rationale, he explained in the statement, are the potential savings fluoridation offers. ""In fact, cities save an estimated $38 in dental costs for every $1 invested in fluoridation,"" he wrote. We thought the topic was timely enough that we ought to do a quick check on this would-be fact. (Full disclosure: The Oregonian used the same fact in a Page 1 article on the subject of fluoridation.) We called Fish's office and spoke with Emily York, one of the commissioner's policy coordinators. She sent us a fact sheet from the Everyone Deserves Healthy Teeth Coalition that laid out the economic case in favor of fluoridation, including the $38 figure that Fish used. The figure, the fact sheet noted, came from a 2001 study published in the Journal of Public Health Dentistry by Susan Griffin, Karl Jones and Scott Tomar. It took some time, but we were able to get our hands on a copy of the study. A quick read revealed that the authors had indeed found significant savings from fewer instances of tooth decay and resulting dental care when communities fluoridated their water supplies. (PolitiFact Oregon recognizes that fluoridation has strong opponents who raise other issues -- but our purpose here is simply to examine the possible cost savings.) To get to the $38 figure, you need to do a little math. For a large community like Portland, the study's authors estimated that fluoridation costs about 50 cents per person. Then it goes on to give a range of possible dental cost savings per person -- from $2.99 to $56.07, with a most likely savings (base case in financial jargon) of $19.12 per person for the 50 cents spent Just double the $19.12 in savings -- because that's how much you get for half a dollar -- and you wind up with $38 in savings for each $1 spent. That's a pretty decent return, to be sure. Now, there are a few caveats here. The study explicitly states that it does not take into account overhead costs of fluoridation or possible health issues that stem from fluoridation, such as dental fluorosis, which the study says ""are negligible."" We contacted one of the study's authors, Scott Tomar, who teaches at the College of Dentistry at the University of Florida. In an e-mail he said the bottom line of the decade-old study was that ""that community water fluoridation saves money under almost any scenario. It is actually one of extremely few public health initiatives that can make such a claim. Based on our analyses, an 18 to 1 return on investment is a reasonable estimate for Portland."" We wanted something a little more specific, however, so we took a look at the actual numbers Portland would be facing. The figures are a little different for the Portland area because it'll cost more than the estimated 50 cents per person to fluoridate. According to early estimates, it'll cost the city about $5 million to get the project started and then about $575,000 annually from there on to fluoridate water for about 900,000 people. We worked the math and that means in the first year, Portland area residents would save about $3 in dental costs for every $1 invested. After that, it'd cost closer to 64 cents per person to fluoridate the water, meaning a savings of about $30 for each $1 spent. Fish was measured in his comments. He said that ""cities save an estimated $38 in dental costs for every $1 invested in fluoridation"" and, indeed, that was the estimate of one article that appeared in a peer-reviewed medical journal. Furthermore, the findings of this article are highlighted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on its website on the subject. The savings for Portland, however, are slimmer, and we think that's important context that is missing. We find this statement ." Claim: "Nick Fish Says ""cities save an estimated $38 in dental costs for every $1 invested in fluoridation."
Output: Do cities really save $38 for every $1 they spend on fluoridation?