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.
--------
Question: Paragraph: Samoa declared a national emergency last month and mandated that all 200,000 people living on the South Pacific island nation get vaccinated. The government has closed all schools and banned children from public gatherings. In all, 53 people have died in the outbreak since late October, including one adult and two older teenagers. Most of those who have died have been babies and young infants, including 23 children aged less than 1 and 25 children aged between 1 and 4. The government said more than 1,100 people have been admitted to hospitals since the outbreak began and about 180 people remain hospitalized. Among those hospitalized are 19 children who are in critical condition. Samoan authorities believe the virus was first spread by a traveler from New Zealand. New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said Monday that her country was doing everything it could to help curb the epidemic, including sending more than 50 medical professionals and thousands of vaccines to Samoa. Other countries including Britain have also sent teams and supplies. Ardern said the natural curve of infection rates meant that "sometimes things can be worse before they are better." Figures from the World Health Organization and UNICEF indicate that fewer than 30% of Samoan infants were immunized last year. That low rate was exacerbated by a medical mishap that killed two babies who were administered a vaccine that had been incorrectly mixed, causing wider delays and distrust in the vaccination program. The government said about 33,000 people were vaccinated before last month and since then, another 58,000 people have been vaccinated. The World Health Organization has set a target of wiping out measles from most of the world by next year. It says the disease is entirely preventable thanks to a safe vaccine that has been in use since the 1960s, and that measles deaths worldwide decreased by 84% between 2000 and 2016 to about 90,000 annually thanks to better immunization. Claim: 50 children killed by measles in Samoa as outbreak worsens.

Answer: Samoa's government said Monday that another five children had died within the past day from a measles outbreak, bringing the death toll from the epidemic to more than 50 as authorities race to vaccinate the entire population.

Question: Paragraph: The story does not mention the cost of mammography (or of follow up tests and treatments) to the individual, or, collectively, to society. And these costs are substantial. Based on the results of this study, 2,500 women would have to be screened every other year for a decade in order to prevent one death from breast cancer. As the story points out, during that same time 1,000 of those women would have at least one false alarm and 500 would undergo an unnecessary biopsy, thus adding to the price tag. On balance, this story does a fair job of describing the benefits of screening mammography as seen in this study. It reports the apparent 10 percent reduction in breast cancer deaths, while also pointing out that because relatively few women in the 50-69 age group die of breast cancer, that reduction can also be described as cutting the 10-year risk of death from 4.4 per 1,000 women to 4 per 1,000. The second statistic helps counteract popular assumptions about how many middle-aged women die from breast cancer. However, the framing of a story and who gets the last word sometimes overwhelms evidence-based explanations earlier in the story. That almost happened with this story, which gives the final word to an advocate of annual breast cancer screening for all women beginning by age 40, which is just the sort of blanket recommendation this latest study calls into question. The story includes a comment that because mammograms detect lumps that would not have become life-threatening, five to 15 women may be treated for every one whose life is saved by treatment. The story oversimplifies the methods used by researchers, saying they compared "women who were similar in most ways, except that one group received mammograms and the other didn't," without explaining that this was not a randomized trial where some women were assigned to screening and others weren't, but rather an observational study that looked at data on women during a 9-year period when Norway phased in mammography region by region. The story does alert readers to some of the limitations of the study: one, that a longer follow-up period might have shown more benefit to screening and, two, that the researchers had no information on whether any of the women received mammograms outside of the national screening program. It's a tossup for us to grade and, as we do in most such cases, we'll give the story the benefit of the doubt. Claim: Mammogram benefits more modest than doctors thought

Answer: However, it does not explain to readers what is new or different about this study compared to earlier reports. Also, the final word in the story goes to an expert who touts benefits of mammography screening that clash with what was seen in this study. By comparing this story with, for example, the Philadelphia Inquirer and WebMD stories, you see how some of the gaps we've identified were addressed by competitors, giving readers a more complete and helpful story.

Question: Paragraph: The costs of antidepressants weren't discussed, but perhaps that is understandable in this kind of broad overview of a meta-analysis. Fluoxetine (prozac) and venalfaxine (effexor) are now both generic. So costs are pretty low. The story gave detailed breakdowns of percent improvement in scores on depression tests and provided an estimate of the number needed to treat in order for one to benefit. The difference in benefits between older and younger patients was highlighted. There was at least the acknowledgement that these drugs do carry side effects but none was specified nor quantified. Several of the limitations of the meta-analysis were mentioned in the story. Of course, one key limitation in such cases is how they selected studies for the analyses (ones already available to them from the National Institute of Mental Health and from drug companies). This may not bias the results but may bias the interpretation (the authors say they only know these effects for prozac/effexor and can't comment on other drugs; that could possibly lead a reader to incorrectly conclude that only prozac/effexor are shown to be effective.) No disease mongering about depression here. The story interviewed Irving Kirsch, frequently cited/quoted on antidepressant research issues. It also did a good job of noting potential conflicts of interest. The story at least noted alternatives including psychotherapy and exercise, but didn't give information about the effects, pros/cons of these options. The availability of antidepressants was not in question. The story didn't analyze the novelty claim that the researchers made: "To our knowledge, this is the first research synthesis in this area to use complete longitudinal person-level data from a large set of published and unpublished studies. The results do not support previous findings that antidepressants show little benefit except for severe depression." The second point was made in the story, but perhaps the story should have explained a bit more about the methodological reasons for why this analysis was or what made it different or important. As to the first (questionable) part of the claim, what's novel is this: more studies than the previous analysis, adolescents/adults/older adults included and analyzed by these groups. The story did not rely on a news release. Claim: Study suggests overall benefit from antidepressants

Answer:
Reporters usually don't write the headlines, but we wish someone would have changed the headline on this story. The body of the story conveyed important questions about the number needed to treat and about differences in treating the elderly that perhaps were worthy of headline attention. The story tried to capture why this is important in its opening sentence: Despite recent debate about how well antidepressants really work in people with only mild or moderate depression, a new analysis of drug studies suggests they may have some benefit across the board. But there is a nuance here. The previous patient level meta-analysis (JAMA) included fewer studies, but across a broader spectrum of depression (minor depression to major depression), and some with longer followup The current study and more included trials (good) restricted their analyses to studies enrolling patients with major depression (also good this is the group for whom it appears treatment is most indicated) but only have short-term results (not so good). Although this level of detail is probably beyond what is needed for a general circulation story, pointing out WHY these 2 studies may have found different results and specifically noting that the results apply to those with major depressive disorder would be helpful