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.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: Washington's governor banned large public events in three counties on Wednesday, a strategy guided by the work of Trevor Bedford and his colleagues, who have estimated there are currently 1,100 active cases in the state, most of them undiscovered by testing. Like a detective studying fingerprints, Bedford uses the genetic code the virus leaves behind. The dots he connects are mutations in the genetic alphabet of the virus, a 30,000-letter string that changes at the rate of one letter every 15 days. Those tiny mutations don't change the virus' effect on people, but they do allow scientists to draw conclusions about how it spreads from person to person. After a person gets tested for the virus with nasal and throat swabs, a small bit of the specimen can be used to rapidly sequence the virus' genome. That work has been happening, not just in Seattle, but in other labs around the world. Scientists are sharing their results on a public platform where they've been sharing influenza genome data since 2008. This week, Bedford's lab at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center worked with California researchers to find links between a cluster of cases in the Seattle area and the outbreak on the Grand Princess cruise ship in California. "They all are very similar genetically," Bedford told The Associated Press. "It seems very possible" that virus from the Washington outbreak made it onto the Grand Princess. Dr. Charles Chiu at the University of California, San Francisco, agreed. He provided genome sequencing of seven samples from infected passengers who got off the Grand Princess this week. An eighth sample from an earlier Grand Princess cruise to Mexico had ties to Washington state, Chiu said, and that person likely seeded the outbreak among passengers on board as the ship left for Hawaii. "The simplest explanation," Chiu said, is that the earlier Grand Princess passenger had been in Washington state and then seeded the cruise ship outbreak. There's an alternative explanation, Chiu said. A cruise passenger or crew member was infected in another country, coincidentally by a virus with the same mutations as the Washington state cases. "Common sense tells you it more likely came from Washington," Chiu said. For most people, the coronavirus causes only mild or moderate symptoms, such as fever and cough. For some, especially older adults and people with existing health problems, it can cause more severe illness, including pneumonia. The vast majority of people recover within a few weeks. Based on genome sequencing of 18 Washington state cases, Bedford believes the state outbreak began with one person, perhaps the 35-year-old man who was the first known U.S. case. The coronavirus infection rate in the Seattle Flu Study, a project mapping seasonal flu, indicates there could be 1,100 active COVID-19 infections in the state, although because of limitations in the modeling that number could range from as low as 210 to as high as 2,800 active infections. Health authorities tried to trace all the people who had contact with the first U.S. case, a resident of Snohomish County, north of Seattle, who had visited Wuhan, the Chinese city that was the initial epicenter of the outbreak. He landed at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport on Jan. 15 and started feeling sick the next day. On Jan. 19, he visited a clinic in and was hospitalized on Jan. 20. "They did very aggressive contact tracing looking to identify anybody who had had contact with that initial case and sort of concentric circles outward," Dr. Nancy Messonnier of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said Wednesday. She called Bedford's work "an interesting hypothesis," but said the outbreak could have been caused by "a secondary seeding." Kristian Andersen, a genetic epidemiologist at Scripps Research in La Jolla, California, agreed that the virus was introduced to Washington state by one person and suggested that the active cases probably exceed 1,100. Neither of the conclusions Bedford described is a surprise, he said in an email. "The United States has completely failed to prepare for the pandemic despite having adequate time and we currently have one of the lowest capacity for COVID-19 testing," he wrote. "This continues to be an enormous problem and it is highly likely that we are currently be missing the vast majority of cases occurring across the country." "Unless our ability to detect cases is transformed within days and aggressive strategies for responses are put in place, within a couple of weeks, we are going to find ourselves in a situation that is very similar to the one currently unfolding in Italy," Andersen wrote. ___ Associated Press Science Writer Malcolm Ritter in New York contributed to this report. ___ The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Department of Science Education. The AP is solely responsible for all content. ___ Follow AP coverage of the virus outbreak at https://apnews.com/VirusOutbreak and https://apnews.com/UnderstandingtheOutbreak Claim: Scientist links 2 state outbreaks with genetic fingerprints.
[EX A]: A U.S. scientist is helping public health authorities understand and track the coronavirus, turning up clues about how it arrived and spread through Washington state and beyond, including potentially seeding an outbreak on the Grand Princess cruise ship.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: We give the story credit for at least citing a $30,000 cost for the "surgeries" but wish it had explained what that included and what it might not. Surgery to change the battery every two years certainly adds to cost. Undoubtedly patients require more intensive expensive followup and perhaps specialized checks to ensure the device is working. With broad strokes across discussion of three different uses for three different conditions, the story did an adequate job quantifiying benefits. As stated in the "Evidence" criterion above, this is where a control group and reporting response rates for treated versus control groups would be very informative. Instead, we only get a qualitative description of benefits which is useful but which might leave careful readers asking for more. This is one area where the story could have been improved. There was no detailed discussion of what can go wrong with deep brain stimulation. There was a brief mention of "if" the electrodes cause neurological side effects. But how often does that happen? And the story noted that the surgery does "sometimes" cause dangerous brain bleeding or infections. How often is "sometimes"? At a very high, overview level, the story explained the current state of the evidence. But more information would have been better. Current evidence for depression/OCD is based on case series. These studies don't have a control group, making the results more subject to bias. No disease mongering of any of the conditions discussed. The story was repeatedly clear about deep brain stimulation being used when standard medications or behavior therapy had not worked. But it would be helpful to give estimates of the proportion of patients with depression or OCD who aren't helped by available treatments. Several sources were cited. Dr. Mayberg's connection to St. Jude Medical was mentioned. The story could have mentioned that Dr. Okun's center and Dr. Greenberg have received funding from Medtronic. Greenberg's current funding from the National Institute of Mental Health was noted. We think the sourcing and disclosure was adequate. A strong point of the story was that it repeatedly provided the context for the use of deep brain stimulation "when standard medications failworst-case patientsdoesn't mean patients can abandon traditional therapypeople with intractable (problems)(people who) failed behavior therapy." This story already attempted to accomplish a lot, but to be complete, it could have offered explicit description of currently approved options: antidepressant medications (multiple classes); psychotherapy (multiple options); combinations of medications or medications and therapy; transcranial magnetic stimulation (limited availabilty), vagal nerve stimulation, ECT and estimate of the proportion of patients who fail these treatments. Nonethless, we feel it met the criteria for a satisfactory score. The story states that 70,000 have had deep brian stimulation for Parkinson's or other movement disorders, and that studies are underway on at least 60 people with intractable obsessive-compulsive disorder and 100 with severe depression. The experimental nature of these approaches is clear from the story. A nice touch would be to give a link to clinicaltrials.gov to allow readers the option of looking up more information on the studies in progress and finding out if recruitment is open and how to access the study. The story did a good job putting the new uses of deep brain stimulation into the context of other research and other therapeutic approaches. It's clear that the story did not rely on a news release. Claim: Trying brain pacemakers to zap psychiatric disease
[EX A]: We especially appreciate the lack of hype in this story. The reporter clearly worked hard to stick to the evidence not merely to promote the potential. About 65-70 percent of patients with major depressive disorder improve substantially with 1 to 2 course of standard treatment (medication, psychotherapy or combinations). Subsequent treatment options have progressively lower rates of treatment response. Therefore, a significant number of people need other treatment options. Deep brain stimulation is an invasive treatment, but one that has shown promise in a small number of patients.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: "Gov. Gretchen Whitmer's stay-at-home orders prompted conservatives to organize protests, but Whitmer said she will base decisions on how and when to relax Michigan's social distancing guidelines on facts and science. At a press conference April 15, Whitmer said that the protests where people gathered without masks in close proximity ""may have just created a need to lengthen it, which is something that we're trying to avoid at all costs."" Whitmer said she is working with experts in health care and other sectors to create a data-driven approach to reopening the state. ""I want to be very clear that our decision to re-engage sectors is going to be based on the best facts and the best science, and what facts and science have told us is that re-engaging our state too soon or too fast will lead to a second wave of COVID-19 in Michigan,"" she said. ""During the flu pandemic of 1918, some cities lifted social distancing measures too fast, too soon, and created a second wave of pandemic."" Whitmer said that as a result of lifting social distancing measures too fast in 1918, many cities had to revert to quarantines and ""suffered a lot of additional deaths."" We will explain the source of her data, which comes from an academic paper in 2007. The influenza pandemic of 1918 spread worldwide and killed at least 50 million people, including about 675,000 in the United States. Since there was no vaccine for the virus and no antibiotics to treat secondary bacterial infections, control efforts were largely limited to social distancing and quarantines, which were applied unevenly. During her press conference, Whitmer pointed to a chart by National Geographic, which displayed the findings of a 2007 study about the death rates in 43 cities during the 1918 pandemic. The study was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association and written by researchers from the University of Michigan Medical School and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Two of the authors summarized their findings in the Washington Post in April. ""The experience of 1918 also reminds us that early, layered (i.e., more than one at the same time) and lengthy mitigation measures are the best strategy. For social distancing to work, it must be sweeping and enforced across a wide swath of the community,"" wrote Howard Markel and J. Alexander Navarro. The researchers examined social distancing in 43 cities during about 24 weeks in 1918-19. Public gathering bans typically meant the closure of saloons, public entertainment venues and sporting events. Indoor gatherings were banned or moved outdoors. Researchers found that cities that implemented social distancing in a timely and comprehensive manner and sustained those rules suffered the least. St. Louis, for example, implemented a relatively early, layered strategy that included school closures and the cancellation of public gatherings. It sustained those interventions for about 10 weeks and did not experience nearly as harmful an outbreak as 36 other communities. Conversely, Philadelphia held a massive Liberty Bond Parade to bolster the World War I effort. That led to a spike of thousands of flu cases within days. In Atlanta, the mayor sided with the business community and ended closures after three weeks, despite objections from the board of health. The epidemic raged in Atlanta. Researchers documented public pressure to end social distancing as soon as the flu seemed to peak and ebb. Cities then lifted the measures, and people lined up for movies and packed into dance halls and shopping districts. ""The result? Cases and deaths resurged. Most cities closed their schools once again,"" the researchers wrote. Researchers noted caveats including that there could be errors in the historical record and the difficulties in interpreting data from 90 years ago. Navarro, one of the study authors, told PolitiFact that the study shows that communities must be very careful about removing social distancing restrictions too soon. Social distancing flattens the curve, but it doesn't end the epidemic. It ends when a community reaches hard immunity through vaccine or antibody reaction from infection. A separate paper published in 2007 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciencesexamined 17 U.S. cities during the flu pandemic. It found that cities in which interventions were implemented early had peak death rates about 50% lower than those that did not. It concluded that social distancing and other measures ""can significantly reduce influenza transmission, but that viral spread will be renewed upon relaxation of such measures."" It's tricky to compare lifting restrictions ""too early"" with ""holding them for longer,"" said Marc Lipsitch, a Harvard epidemiologist and one of the co-authors of the National Academy of Sciences paper. In either case, there will be some amount of resurgence once social distancing is let up. A recent paper he co-authored in Science suggested that a single period of distancing could not permanently solve the problem; prolonged or intermittent social distancing may be necessary into 2022. ""So overall, the problem is that it's not short vs. long, but single vs. repeated (or some other strategy such as a vaccine),"" he told PolitiFact. On April 15, President Donald Trump said he thinks some states can open up before May 1. Many scientists have warned that ending the interventions prematurely will lead to more deaths. Dr Anthony Fauci, the country's top infectious disease expert, told the Associated Press on April 14 that the U.S. doesn't yet have the contact tracing and testing needed to reopen the economy. He said Trump's goal was a ""bit overly optimistic"" for parts of the country. ""I'll guarantee you, once you start pulling back there will be infections. It's how you deal with the infections that's going count,"" Fauci told the AP. Whitmer said, ""During the flu pandemic of 1918, some cities lifted social distancing measures too fast, too soon, and created a second wave of pandemic."" Typically, when social distancing ends, there is a second wave. The goal is to make the second wave as small as possible. Whitmer pointed to research from the University of Michigan in 2007 that found after social distancing rules ended in many cities, cases and deaths surged." Claim: "During the flu pandemic of 1918, some cities lifted social distancing measures too fast, too soon, and created a second wave of pandemic."
[EX A]:
Protesters called on Gov. Gretchen Whitmer to relax Michigan's social distancing requirements. Whitmer said she will base decisions on how to reopen Michigan on facts and science. A 2007 study found that amid the 1918 flu pandemic, many cities experienced second waves after ending social distancing.