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: 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 solution: 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.

Problem: Paragraph: The group, calling themselves Caircraft, believe that big aircraft like A380s and A340s, which are grounded due to coronavirus travel restrictions, could be stripped down and refitted with ICU beds and equipment in seven to ten days. Between 100-150 beds could fit on each aircraft depending on the size of the jet under the group's design plans, and it is now waiting for government support for funding and coordination. "We've had various conversations at various levels. And we absolutely appreciate how busy they are with everything else going on," aviation economist Chris Tarry said of contact with government. "It's a question of reaching the right desks at the right time." Tarry has joined entrepreneur Nick Dyne, Jonathan Sackier, Visiting Professor of SurgeryatOxford University's Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences and others on the plan. The group is also talking to the U.S. government, Canada, Germany and Malaysia about the idea, Dyne said. UK airlines with parked-up widebody jets support the idea, said Dyne without naming them, although they are believed to include British Airways and Virgin Atlantic, as well as a number of UK airports and the UK aviation regulator, the CAA. Britain is bracing for the epidemic to peak in the coming weeks, and is building field hospitals in London, Birmingham, Manchester and Cardiff to bolster its state-run National Health Service (NHS). Under the Caircraft plans, which the group has been working on for a week, the aircraft would first fly to the place where they were to be needed, before being fitted out. They would not move once treating patients. "What we don't want to do is to be a flying hospital. The regulatory issues regarding that are just too great," said Dyne. The group say the advantage of using planes is that not only are they mobile and there are plenty of them now available, but also that their filtered, one-way airflow systems mirror those of an operating theatre. Dyne declined to comment on the how much it would cost to convert each aircraft. Claim: UK group calls for grounded planes to be used as intensive care wards.
Solution: Airlines, airports and regulators have given their backing to a plan to turn large passenger aircraft into intensive care wards during the coronavirus pandemic, a UK-based group working on the idea said on Monday.