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: There was no discussion of costs. The story included quantitive information about weight loss over time. It did not quantify the impact on blood pressure. The story mentioned specific side effects of this particular medication combination. To be most informative to readers, the story should have mentioned that the potential for long-term harm is not known. And the rate at which people stopped taking the drug due to side effects should have been included. While indicating that several studies had been conducted in more than 4,500 people with various characteristics, the story never mentioned whether the studies are considered definitive or not; it also did not mention that the results of these studies have not yet been published in peer-reviewed journals. And while reporting that weight loss appeared to be dose dependent, there was no discussion of how weight loss compared with those in control groups. Lastly as the focus of the story appeared to be on an effect on blood pressure, it would seem that the story should have included some detail about the magnitude of the change. The story did not engage in overt disease mongering. The story mention that the study author and Dr. Aronne received funding from the manufacturer of this drug. It also included a quote from the president of the American Society of Hypertension who does not appear to have a financial tie to this product. There was no information about how well this product works in comparison with other approaches to weight loss. It's pretty clear from the story that the combination of the two drugs is not yet available. The story reported that the drug was a combination of two commercially available medications. It does not appear that the story relied solely or largely on a news release. Claim: Weight Loss Pill Also Lowers Blood Pressure
[EX A]: Although highlighting the effect of this product on blood pressure, the story did not explain how much blood pressure dropped. The story also didn't say how common the side effects are or how often people have to discontinue the medication due to side effects. It would have been helpful to remind readers of the possible pitfalls that may be ahead and that little is known about the long term use of this product in terms of both weight loss and potential risks that might result. Obesity and high blood pressure are very common conditions. There are few treatment for obesity that have been demonstrated to be enable people to lose weight and maintain that loss.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: The U.N. agency is seeking to balance the need to ensure China continues to share information about the virus while also giving sound scientific advice to the international community on the risks, according to several public health experts and a Western diplomat who tracks the WHO's work. The WHO has declared five global emergencies in the past decade, including the ongoing Ebola epidemic in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Doing so can hurt host countries because it may lead to flight cancellations and travel or trade restrictions, dragging on the economy. In the latest case, the WHO declined to declare China's coronavirus a public health emergency of international concern(PHEIC) twice last week, although its Emergency Committee was split "50-50" over whether to do so. "What was lacking for them to declare an international emergency were deaths abroad and human-to-human transmission outside of China," said the Geneva-based diplomat following the agency. "If there was proof of human-to-human spread among the 'imported' cases, the panel would lean toward another finding." WHO spokesman Christian Lindmeier declined to comment beyond what he told a news briefing earlier on Tuesday. He restated that the WHO's criteria for a global emergency include a "serious or unusual" health situation that affects other countries and may require a coordinated international response. In reply to a question, he added: "It is not 'wildly spreading' outside of China." While the vast majority of the 4,500 or so confirmed cases and all 106 deaths so far have been in China, cases in Germany, Vietnam, Taiwan and Japan where the virus has spread person-to-person have heightened concerns. "As information is coming in, it seems to be confirming our worst fears," Lawrence Gostin, university professor at Georgetown Law in Washington, DC, told Reuters. "So I do believe that the WHO is going to have to declare an emergency and is going to have to take the lead ... You can't leave this to China." The WHO's 16-member expert panel is being "kept in the loop" and could be reconvened at any time to reassess the outbreak. "Just because of rising numbers in China now this would not automatically trigger an Emergency Committee," Lindmeier told the briefing. A declaration would lead to boosting public health measures, funding and resources to prevent and reduce global spread. It could include recommendations on trade and travel, although the WHO generally tries to avoid disruptive trade restrictions. The Emergency Committee deliberations are secret and its members have been told not to speak about their debate, several WHO officials told Reuters. WHO chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus and Chinese President Xi Jinping met in Beijing on Tuesday to discuss how to protect Chinese citizens and foreigners in areas affected by the virus and "possible" evacuation alternatives, Lindmeier said. China has agreed that the WHO can send international experts there as soon as possible to increase understanding of the new coronavirus and guide the global response to the outbreak, the WHO said at the end of Tedros' two-day visit. Some experts believe the Geneva-based health agency is in a difficult position, having drawn fire in the past for acting either too quickly or too slowly. "Essentially the WHO is between a rock and a hard place," said Jeremy Farrar, an expert in infectious disease epidemics and director of the Wellcome Trust global health charity. Farrar noted that the organization was criticised for having called an early emergency in 2009 for the H1N1 flu pandemic, which proved mild, and then for being too late in declaring the Ebola epidemic in West Africa in 2014. Claim: WHO weighs science and politics in global virus emergency decision.
[EX A]: Most of the World Health Organization's (WHO) criteria for declaring a global emergency have been met, but it is awaiting clear evidence of a sustained spread of the new coronavirus outside China before doing so, some experts and diplomats said.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: "Wisconsin's response to the coronavirus outbreak is under a microscope as cases surge and Republicans and Democrats continue to clash over what -- if anything -- to do about the increase. Tensions boiled over July 30, 2020 after Democratic Gov. Tony Evers issued a statewide face mask mandate, despite opposition from Republicans who contend the move amounts to government overreach. In the days before that, though, the state Senate's Democratic Committee turned its frustration toward Republican lawmakers. ""While neighboring states like Minnesota, Illinois and Michigan have already implemented safety precautions like requiring individuals to wear masks, similar pleas in Wisconsin have fallen on deaf ears of Republican legislators,"" stated a July 24 news release. Lawmakers in those states have passed more COVID-19-related bills than Wisconsin's Republican-controlled Legislature since the pandemic began. But some precautions, like a mask mandate, came from executive orders and not legislation. How does the committee's claim stack up? Eric LaGesse, executive director of the Senate's Democratic committee, did not respond to PolitiFact Wisconsin's request for evidence to back up their claim. But the claim is pretty straightforward, and there has been a lot of news coverage of the state's response to the pandemic. Here's a recap: In March, Evers and Health Services Secretary Andrea Palm issued a series of orders to curb large gatherings as COVID-19 began to emerge in Wisconsin. Those actions culminated in a stay-at-home order on March 24, 2020, which shut down the state to help contain the virus' spread. In April, lawmakers passed a coronavirus relief package that allowed the state to tap into extra federal Medicaid dollars and suspended a one-week waiting period for collecting unemployment benefits, among other provisions. However, the state lost $25 million in federal funding for unemployment because Republican leaders waited too long to schedule a floor session on the relief package. Evers' administration extended the stay-at-home order on April 16 and four days later unveiled the Badger Bounce Back plan, which provided a phased approach for reopening based on testing and other public health criteria. In May, acting on a lawsuit from state GOP leaders, the state Supreme Court struck down much of the order and allowed the state to reopen without any protocols in place. After that, not much happened at the state level until the mask mandate despite a recent surge in infections and multiple daily increases of over 1,000 cases. Lawmakers have introduced 10 bills related to the pandemic in recent months, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported. The relief package we mentioned earlier is the only one that's passed. The Democratic committee argued neighboring states -- specifically Illinois, Minnesota and Michigan -- have implemented more safety precautions for their residents. According to a database maintained by the National Conference of State Legislatures, Minnesota enacted 25 pieces of legislation related to COVID-19 through July 23 after lawmakers introduced over 200 measures. Illinois has passed 18, and Michigan approved 19. The bills touch on a wide range of issues, from COVID-19 testing to election procedures. The differences between Wisconsin and its neighbors can't be blamed on partisan gridlock, either. While Democrats control Illinois' state government, Minnesota's legislature is split between both parties with a Democrat in the governor's office. Michigan, like Wisconsin, has a Democratic governor and a Republican-controlled legislature. It's worth noting, though, that some of the precautions in other states came about through executive orders by their governors, not action by the legislature. Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzer, for example, issued an order on June 26 requiring residents to wear face coverings -- over a month before Evers enacted a mask mandate in Wisconsin. Governors in other states also enacted stay-at-home orders similar to what Evers implemented. Wisconsin's state Senate Democratic Committee claimed Republican lawmakers have failed to act while ""neighboring states like Minnesota, Illinois and Michigan have already implemented safety precautions like requiring individuals to wear masks."" It's clear that Wisconsin lawmakers are behind the curve on COVID-19 compared to neighboring legislatures. Legislative bodies in Minnesota, Illinois and Michigan have introduced and passed more bills since the pandemic began. But they didn't act alone, and safety precautions like mask mandates were ordered by their governors. That leaves us with a statement that's accurate but needs clarification or additional information." Claim: "Say Wisconsin Republican lawmakers have done nothing ""while neighboring states like Minnesota, Illinois and Michigan have already implemented safety precautions like requiring individuals to wear masks."
[EX A]:
Lawmakers in Minnesota, Michigan and Illinois have passed more COVID-19 legislation than Wisconsin's GOP-controlled legislature. That said, some safety precautions in those states came about through executive orders by the governors.