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.

[Q]: Paragraph: Since Nov. 1, South Carolina has recorded 86 reported cases of the contagious disease. State Epidemiologist Linda Bell said Monday that's more than four times what state officials normally expect to see. Over the last 10 years, South Carolina averaged 19 reported cases of hepatitis A annually. Most of the new cases have occurred in Aiken County, and almost half of all cases involve individuals who reported drug use, Bell said. Still, the general population needn't be overly concerned, she said. "But we are seeing cases higher that what we expect to see," Bell said. "And so it's important for us to do our prevention efforts early to reach those high-risk groups, get them vaccinated ... so that we can prevent" a severe outbreak. The State reports the Department of Health and Environmental Control is offering no-cost vaccines to high risk groups including drug users, homeless, formerly incarcerated and sexually-active gay men. Additionally, health officials recommend all children get two doses of the vaccine as part of their immunization schedule. Of the 86 reported cases in South Carolina, 59 have led to hospitalization and one resulted in death, the DHEC said. Hepatitis is a disease characterized by inflammation of the liver. It comes in many forms, including hepatitis A, B and C. As a result, individuals with chronic liver disease, like cirrhosis, are at increased risk of complications if infected and should be vaccinated. The virus-borne infection can be prevented by vaccination and is usually transmitted person-to-person through consumption of contaminated food or water, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Antibodies produced in response to hepatitis A infection last for life and protect against reinfection. Infection usually results in sickness in two to six weeks after exposure. Symptoms include fatigue, loss of appetite, stomach pain, nausea, and yellowing of the eyes and skin. Symptoms usually resolve within two months of infection, according to the CDC. State public health officials in February declared an outbreak in Aiken County after an employee at a second restaurant in Aiken tested positive for the virus, the DHEC said. Bell, though, stressed transmission by food or beverage is uncommon. "Most transmission in the United States is through person-to-person contact," Bell said. "Good hygiene - diligently washing your hands - is a good way to prevent hepatitis A, as well as not sharing personal items," including drug equipment, she said, adding the state has received reports of hepatitis A from people using various drugs, "everything from marijuana to meth." Residents can schedule an appointment for a vaccination at their local health department by calling 855-472-3432 or going to http://bit.ly/2HhEsM8 . ___ Information from: The State, http://www.thestate.com Claim: South Carolina declares hepatitis outbreak.
[A]: What began as a spike in reported hepatitis A cases in Aiken County has now spread to other parts of South Carolina, prompting public health officials to declare a statewide outbreak.

[Q]: Paragraph: Not applicable. The cost of olive oil is not in question. This story did the best job of the three stories we reviewed in quantifying the potential benefits observed in the study. "Over the next five to six years, those intensive users suffered strokes at a rate of 0.3 percent per year. That compared with just over 0.5 percent among non-users, and 0.4 percent among moderate users. When the researchers factored in other diet habits, exercise levels and major risk factors for stroke like high blood pressure and diabetes heavy olive oil use was tied to 41 percent reduction in the odds of stroke." There are better ways to try to communicate numbers of less than one percent. But we applaud the detail provided. Not applicable. Excellent. The story devoted almost 200 words to the potential limitations of such an observational study. Also a clear description of the cohort design. No disease-mongering of stroke in the story. The story included strong input from a researcher who wrote in an editorial on the study. The story at least mentioned other factors that could be at play "no single food is consumed in isolation, he points out in his editorial. Olive oil is one part of the Mediterranean diet that has been tied to heart benefits. The diet also boasts plenty of fruits and vegetables, legumes, whole grains, fish and moderate amounts of red wine." Not applicable. The availability of olive oil is not in question. The story attempted to put the new finding into the context of past research on olive oil and the Mediterranean diet. It's clear the story did not rely on a news release. Claim: Olive oil lovers show lower stroke risk
[A]: This story explored the nature of an observational study about the stroke-reducing risks of olive oil. The story appropriately discussed other possible reasons for the findings and why a clinical trial is stronger evidence. With so much news coverage touting an apparent benefit from olive oil in this study (CBS had a headline about "huge decline in stroke risk"), it is refreshing to see so much time and space given to a clear-eyed evaluation of the evidence as this story provided.

[Q]: Paragraph: We were happy to see some attention to the potential cost of the stent and in comparison to the existing drug eluting stents. In addition, the story provided information on the market size at the present time. The story really does not provide a crisp rationale for a bioabsorbable stent. An important limitation of existing stents is that they are associated with increased risk of clots. The absorbable stents are designed tohelp with this problem, but the story doesn't communicate this. It onlyrefers to thepossibility that thenew stents may also cause clots in some people. The comments of the Abbott spokesperson aside, the reader is not provided with any idea of how often the existing stents create difficulties and why the Abbott stent will alleviate the problem. We liked the fact that the potential downsides of the bioabsorbable stent were included in the story. The story notes that the bioabsorbable stent is thicker and may require patients to be on potent anti-clotting drugs, thus exposing the patient to a risk of bleeding. The story also notes that previous studies have shown a low rate of complications. We would have liked to have seen some information about the complications seen. The results of the latest study examining the bioabsorbable stent haven't yet been released,and the story does not delve into optimistic speculation about what the studymay show. We liked the way in which the theoretical advantages are stated and thatthe many unknowns and questions that remain are included. The story could haveprovided abit more informationon the previous studies of bioabsorble stents that are alluded to in the story, especially since there are no new datato discuss. There was no disease-mongering in the story. The statements made bya company representativeare counterbalanced by comments from Dr. Virmani, an independent expert in coronary artery disease and a very outspoken individual. We would have liked to have a comment or two on the parallel developments ongoing in this field. Coronary artery disease is more than a singe blockage. It is a systemic disease that is progressive unless systemic interventions are employed. Aggressive medical therapy is now viewed as an essential element to ongoing care and should have been included for completeness The story makes it clear that while the absorbable stent is available in Europe, Abbot will not be seeking approval for marketing in the United States until 2015. The idea of a bioabsorbable stent is not new or unique to Abbott. The concept was proposed in the early 1990's and the other players are also working on their own version. Although the story alludes to the fact that competitors might seek to follow Abbott's lead, it doesn't convey that other companies are already quite far along in their research. Since the story quotes an unaffiliated expert in the field of cardiac pathophysiology, it is clear that it did not rely solely on a press release. We do wonder, however, why the story ran prior to the issuance of the preliminary results on the new study. Claim: Patients May Benefit From New Heart Device
[A]:
This is a reasonably well written story aboutthe impending release of data on a new medical device. The news of the soon-to-bereleased study might have specific interest for investors in Abbott or thosein the medical device industry. For the rest of us, however, little of value could actually be discerned from the story other than that Abbott is about to present data. The pace of innovation in the interventional management of coronary artery disease has been impressive. First generation interventions included balloon angioplasty, quickly followed by angioplasty and placement of a stent to hold the vessel open. The third generation was heralded with the introduction of drug eluting stents. In each case, new technology was developed in response to what was perceived to bethe failings of the existing approach. So, it is not surprising that a bioabsorbable stent would represent the fourth generation intervention. While the forthcoming case seriesmentioned in this story will add to previous data suggesting benefits from this new approach,only a randomized trial comparing a bioabsorbable and non-bioabsorbable stents will provide convincing evidence of itsvalue.