instruction:
Given a paragraph, generate a claim that is supported by the given paragraph. 1) The claim must contain information from within the paragraph. 2) A sentence within the paragraph can be used as a claim. 3) The claim should not have contradictions within the paragraph. 4) The claim should be at most one sentence long.
question:
On May 12 2020, the following image of small children separated by "chalk squares" on a playground during the COVID-19 pandemic began circulating:In a caption on the above iteration, the user wrote "Their reality 😢🌈," but did not include any contextual information about the image or the events it showed. In it, five seemingly lonely children were seen in the photograph, each confined to the inside of their own chalk square.One of the five in the upper right corner sat at the edge of her square, her legs outside the boundary. Each chalk square appeared to delineate a solitary play area for every child, and spaces between seemed to ensure the children would not come too close to one another as they engaged in socially distant playground activity.Images of the "chalk square" children circulated concurrently alongside an unrelated viral post by "Americas Mom" on Facebook (archived here), in which a photograph of a crying woman is accompanied by a lengthy rant about the woman's "quarantine fatigue" and ancillary concerns that her child was becoming lonely and/or irritating her.That post began by outlining the purported social effects of quarantine on children, before devolving into a rant decrying the use of masks and disinfectant:Written by a Mom, thank you 🙏: "I've had enough. People need to seriously look around and see what it's doing to our kids. To kids too young to understand what's going on. Kids that are by themselves with no siblings to play with, no cousins around, no friends. No secret play dates. No interaction with anyone besides mom or dad. What do you think that's doing to our kids biologically and psychologically?The answer is we don't know!But when you're a parent you can see the hurt that your child is going through every day and you can explain to them why.. Do you know what I've been telling her, the truth! People are afraid of getting sick sweetheart. People are dependent on the government to protect them from everything. You might not agree with that and honestly I don't care. Because I don't agree with anything that's going on right now.Every time I get into the car with my child she begs to go someplace, crying. Should I record it for you? Should I make you hear it on the daily like I do? Will that make you change your mind?You say that you care about these kids. You don't. You fear for these kids, that is a difference. You fear that they're going to be sick.. but are you fearing that their minds are now going to be ill and stunted in growth with no Social interactions? I hope you know those social interactions are how they build their immune system.So put a new spin on essential employees that are allowed to send their kids to childcare. These kids are allowed the ability to socially interact with one another, and have the ability to build their immune system. Nonessential employees or people that never put their child in daycare and relied on social interaction for play are now being stunted. So you're telling us our kids are no longer essential? Our kids aren't essential enough to build their immune system's or build their social connections?You say you are not wanting to open the playgrounds because you can't socially distance and you can't disinfect. Where was your concern with disinfecting prior to coronavirus? Are you telling us that you never sanitized the parks before so they were riddled with viruses and bacteria that our child was going to become ill?Open the playgrounds, stop the social distancing, stop the masks that are POINTLESS. And I swear to god if the medical professional comes on here and says I wear a mask for 12 hours a day, I'm gonna put your ass on blast. Because you do not wear a mask all throughout your 12 hour shift. Stop lying to yourself.If you don't agree with me that's fine. But step the f**k out of my way while I try to fix the future for my child. Because I'll be damned if she cries every day wanting to play with somebody or wanting to go do something and she can't because you live in fear. Live in fear in your own f**king house."As for the children playing in chalk squares, that image was originally tweeted by French journalist Lionel Top on May 12 2020:Les enfants font leur rentree aujourd'hui (un petite partie d'entre-eux plutot). Ambiance tres etrange, voire derangeante pic.twitter.com/g91y5hLatJ Lionel Top (@lioneltop) May 12, 2020That tweet, automatically translated by Twitter, read:The children are coming back today (a small part of them rather). Very strange, even disturbing atmosphere In a second tweet, Top providedadditional detail about the photograph:Contexte :Pour faire respecter les distances, tout en profitant des recres, l'equipe pedagogique a dessine des carres au sol pour les + petits. Les enfants jouent, dansent, sautent, rient ensemble mais depuis ce carre.De ce qu'on a vu, ils ne le vivent pas comme une punition https://t.co/i98ZltvteN Lionel Top (@lioneltop) May 12, 2020Ils apprennent a vivre ensemble mais differemment.Les photos sont marquantes et la plupart des reactions sur Twitter temoignent d'une meme emotion, celle d'une ecole qui ne correspond pas a ce que l'on connait, mais les enfants ce matin n'etaient pas "malheureux" Lionel Top (@lioneltop) May 12, 2020Twitter translation:Context: To ensure that distances are respected, while taking advantage of recreation, the teaching team has drawn squares on the ground for the little ones. The children play, dance, jump, laugh together but from this square. From what we've seen, they don't see it as a punishmentThey learn to live together but differently. The photos are striking and most of the reactions on Twitter show the same emotion, that of a school which does not correspond to what we know, but the children this morning were not "unhappy"A viral photograph of children in "chalk squares" after returning to school during the COVID-19 pandemic was real, shared by a French journalist on May 12 2020. Top captured the image at a preschool in Tourcoing, France, and emphasized that the children were not suffering or unhappy.Comments
answer:
A photograph appears to show small schoolchildren playing alone in marked-off chalk squares drawn on playground asphalt.

question:
Wiping her face with a cotton pad after a Botox injection, the 49-year-old supermarket worker said she has cut down on petrol and entertainment to afford the treatments, which make the skin appear smoother by temporarily paralyzing muscles. "I want to look at myself in the mirror and feel good. I'm afraid of aging," Vorlioti said. "Work, the crisis, they push you down and you want something uplifting." She is not the only one seeking solace in beauty treatments amid a financial crisis that cut hundreds of thousands of jobs cut, slashed salaries and caused a sharp decline in life satisfaction among Greeks. In fact, it seems Greece is undergoing what has been dubbed the "lipstick effect", where consumers turn to low cost beauty to boost their mood during economic depressions. Non-surgical procedures in Greece soared to more than 220,000 in 2016 compared to around 61,000 in 2010, the biggest jump in Europe in the six-year period, according to data by the International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery (ISAPS). At between 80 and 150 euros a pop, it doesn't come cheap for Greeks, who earn an average net monthly income of about 780 euros. Some, like Vorlioti, need to save up for months in order to be able to afford a treatment and yet more are choosing to have them, doctors say. "The crisis has brought new people to the doctor's doorstep, people who wouldn't come before, both men and women who are struggling and want to improve their looks to feel better," said Lia Papadavid, a dermatologist. "It's like giving themselves a present," she told Reuters shortly after giving a middle-aged female a filler injection around her eyes. The rise in Greece follows a world-wide upward trend in non-surgical procedures. It ranked 14th in the world among the top 24 countries in terms of volume of non surgical treatments in 2016, behind countries such as Italy and Germany but above Belgium, according to ISAPS. Surgical treatments, which can cost thousands of euros, are up only 10 percent since 2010. Waiting her turn at the Athens Aurum medical center, 43-year-old Eleni says she turned to injectables in 2013 and has not stopped despite the crisis. "No one has money to spare, everyone is being pressured right now with the crisis, some less, some more. I think it needs a bit of planning, and to love yourself." Investment in the beauty industry doubled between 2009-2015, said the Hellenic Federation of Enterprises in a July report. New nail bars and beauty centers have popped up in central Athens and in the central Syntagma square, young men and women are seen handing out flyers advertising discounts on cosmetic services to passers-by. Chairman of the ISAPS Education Council Paraskevas Kontoes said the surge in non invasive treatments could be explained by their low cost, better results thanks to new technology and people needing to boost their self-esteem battered by years of crisis. Non surgical beauty treatments are fast enough to have in a lunch break, but their effects are only temporary. Results can last eight months or longer depending on the product, Dr Stefanos Stathakis said. He also said most people choose treatments for the face, tying in with other doctors' reports that their clients believe they can help them score better in a job interview, particularly as competition for jobs in Greece is fierce. "They believe it will become easier for them to get a job," said Vorlioti's dermatologist Froso Saksioni. "People struggle and come here for a change. If you charge them a fortune for a treatment it's like giving them a slap instead." As Saksioni prepares for "a vampire lift", where the doctor withdraws and then reinjects a patient's blood to erase wrinkles, Vorlioti books her next appointment. "I've decided to cut down on everything else to do this", she said. "When I feel good about myself, I think it shows."
answer:
The lipstick effect: Greeks discover need to pamper in crisis.

question:
In the summer of 2020, readers asked Snopes to examine the accuracy of claims that, if and when a COVID-19 coronavirus vaccine emerges, individual states could, in principle, be authorized to fine or even jail those who refused to take it. The inquiries stemmed from an Aug. 7, 2020, article published by KGTV in San Diego, California, which bore the headline "States Have Authority to Fine or Jail People Who Refuse Coronavirus Vaccine, Attorney Says." The attorney in question was Dov Fox, a law professor and director of the Center for Health Law Policy and Bioethics at the University of San Diego. The article began: As drugmakers race to develop a vaccine against the coronavirus, several legal questions are emerging: could the government require people to get it? Could people who refuse to roll up their sleeves get banned from stores or lose their jobs? The short answer is yes, according to Dov Fox, a law professor and the director of the Center for Health Law Policy and Bioethics at the University of San Diego. "States can compel vaccinations in more or less intrusive ways," he said in an interview. "They can limit access to schools or services or jobs if people don't get vaccinated. They could force them to pay a fine or even lock them up in jail." Fox noted authorities in the United States have never attempted to jail people for refusing to vaccinate, but other countries like France have adopted the aggressive tactic. The legal precedent dates back to 1905. In a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case, Jacobson v. Massachusetts, the court ruled Massachusetts had the authority to fine people who refused vaccinations for smallpox. The interview with Fox was republished by WMAR and on the Newsbreak website. Fox's assessment was accurate. The 1905 Supreme Court decision he highlighted set a precedent for subsequent court rulings that have reaffirmed, over the ensuing century, that state and local authorities can, in principle, impose penalties including criminal sanctions upon individuals who refuse to undergo mandatory vaccinations. In February 1902, the Board of Health in Cambridge, Massachusetts, introduced a regulation requiring that any resident who had not been vaccinated against smallpox in the previous five years must be vaccinated or revaccinated. Massachusetts state law imposed a fine of $5 for anyone over the age of 21 years old who was eligible to receive the vaccine but refused. In July of that year, Henning Jacobson, a Swedish immigrant and Lutheran pastor aged in his 40s, refused to be vaccinated and was arrested and charged with violating the state's compulsory vaccination law. He was tried and convicted and fined $5. Jacobson challenged his conviction, but the Massachusetts Supreme Court upheld it, and he took his case to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1904. According to a contemporary news report, Jacobson's legal challenges were funded by the Anti-Compulsory Vaccination Society. In February 1905, the court issued its decision, upholding the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision and ruling that the state law that Jacobson was found to have violated was not in breach of his constitutional rights. His conviction was upheld. In the majority opinion, Justice John Marshall Harlan summarized some of the main issues at stake: [] The defendant [Jacobson] insists that his liberty is invaded when the State subjects him to fine or imprisonment for neglecting or refusing to submit to vaccination; that a compulsory vaccination law is unreasonable, arbitrary and oppressive, and, therefore, hostile to the inherent right of every freeman to care for his own body and health in such way as to him seems best; and that the execution of such a law against one who objects to vaccination, no matter for what reason, is nothing short of an assault upon his person. But the liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States to every person within its jurisdiction does not import an absolute right in each person to be, at all times and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint. There are manifold restraints to which every person is necessarily subject for the common good. On any other basis organized society could not exist with safety to its members. Society based on the rule that each one is a law unto himself would soon be confronted with disorder and anarchy' 'Police Power' The Jacobson decision was based in part on a long-standing principle known as the "police power" doctrine, which gives a state the authority to, in certain circumstances and within certain parameters, limit the individual rights of those living within its jurisdiction in order to protect the common good or preserve safety. It applies particularly to actions or behaviors that would not ordinarily be regarded as criminal or aberrant. For example, peacefully walking down a public street after dark is almost always regarded as acceptable, non-criminal behavior and fully in keeping with a person's constitutionally enshrined individual liberty. However, in specific circumstances for example where rioting in a particular city or neighborhood means state or local authorities decide the common good is best served by imposing a curfew walking down a public street after dark, although not inherently criminal or dangerous to others, can lawfully be prohibited in a specific location for a defined period of time, and those who insist on doing it can lawfully be subjected to criminal penalties. One academic paper summarized the police power principle as follows: "The doctrine of state 'police power' was adopted in early colonial America from firmly established English common law principles mandating the limitation of private rights when needed for the preservation of the common good. It was one of the powers reserved by the states with the adoption of the federal Constitution and was limited only by the Constitution's Supremacy Clause which mandates preeminence of federal law in matters delegated to the federal government and the individual rights protected in the subsequent Amendments. The application of police power has traditionally implied a capacity to (1) promote the public health, morals, or safety, and the general well-being of the community; (2) enact and enforce laws for the promotion of the general welfare; (3) regulate private rights in the public interest; and (4) extend measures to all great public needs." The state police power doctrine is the reason why mandatory quarantine and isolation orders, curfews, and indeed mandatory vaccination programs, are rarely successfully challenged in the courts. Just as the Constitution's protection of individual liberties is not absolute, limits also exist on the authority of a state to prohibit or compel an individual's actions. In the case of mandatory vaccination, the Supreme Court outlined some of those issues in its opinion in the Jacobson case, writing: A statute requiring the vaccination of all the inhabitants of a State at a specified time irrespective of the presence of smallpox and without regard to individual conditions of health, or a set of rules and regulations made by the legislature itself, which must necessarily be more or less inelastic, would be far less just than this statute which delegates discretion to local public officials []. Arbitrary action by the Board of Health, 'with evil mind,' might result in a denial of due process of law. If they picked out one class of persons arbitrarily for immediate vaccination, while indefinitely postponing action toward all others, or if they otherwise abused their discretion their action might be in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment [] The precedent set by the Supreme Court in the Jacobson ruling persists to the present day. In 2015, almost 110 years later, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit explicitly cited the case when affirming the constitutionality of a New York state law that makes vaccination mandatory for public school students. The appeals court opinion stated: "Plaintiffs argue that New York's mandatory vaccination requirement violates substantive due process. This argument is foreclosed by the Supreme Court's decision in Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts []." In another landmark decision in 1922, the Supreme Court wrote that the Jacobson ruling had "settled that it is within the police power of a State to provide for compulsory vaccination."
answer:
Individual U.S. states would be legally authorized to impose criminal penalties on individuals who refused to undergo a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination.