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.

Attractions such as the Louvre Abu Dhabi museum and the Ferrari World theme park will be closed from March 15-31, the Abu Dhabi Government Media Office said, while the country's civil aviation authority indefinitely suspended flights to and from Lebanon, Turkey, Syria and Iraq from March 17. The UAE, which has reported 85 coronavirus infections but no deaths, and other Gulf Arab states are intensifying measures to halt the virus as the number of cases rises. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait have taken the most drastic steps, cancelling all international flights. Dubai, the UAE's regional business and transit hub, said it was cancelling all events planned in March and asked hotels to stop hosting wedding celebrations. Some shops have voluntarily closed to boost containment efforts. In the capital, Abu Dhabi, cinemas, arcades and entertainment venues have been shuttered, state news agency WAM reported. Seeking to soften the impact of the shutdowns on key sectors such as tourism and transportation, the central bank said its program would help banks and companies weather the crisis. Saudi Arabia also announced $13 billion to support small and medium enterprises. Saudi Arabia, which reported 17 new cases on Saturday bringing its total to 103, said two-week flight suspensions would start on Sunday, while Kuwait did not specify a length for its grounding which began on Saturday. Saudi Arabia has already suspended the Umrah pilgrimage and locked down its eastern Qatif region where many infections are located. On Saturday, it also closed popular family entertainment zones located inside many shopping malls. Health ministry spokesman Mohammed Abdelali urged the population of 30 million to avoid gathering in public, minimize movements and stay at home as much as possible. "(Such) measures slow the growth of cases so that we can control it, while the countries that take delayed measures experience fast growth which the health systems cannot deal with," he told reporters. The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), a group of six oil-rich Arab monarchies which also includes Qatar, Bahrain and Oman, has reported nearly 900 coronavirus cases, mostly in people who had traveled to Iran or who been infected by visitors to Iran. No deaths have been reported in the GCC, unlike Iran where the toll rose by nearly 100 on Saturday to 611, out of 12,729 total infections. Oman, with the lowest number of infections in the region at 20, said on Saturday all schools and educational institutions would close for a month, a precaution also taken by other GCC states and Yemen. Saudi Arabia and Oman canceled all sporting events until further notice, state media said. The UAE will stop issuing visas, except for foreign diplomats, from March 17, WAM reported, citing immigration authorities. Qatar will halt the issuance of visas upon arrival to a number of European nationalities from Sunday, the government communication office said, while the Qatar Olympic Committee suspended all local sports activities until March 29. Qatar confirmed 17 new infections on Saturday, bringing the total number of cases to 337, the highest in the GCC, followed by Bahrain with 211 and Kuwait with 104. Gulf health authorities have stepped up pleas to avoid gatherings and are sanitizing public places. Police in Kuwait used drones fitted with loudspeakers to urge people on the streets to avoid gathering. Health Minister Basel Al-Sabah said on state television: "I urge you by God to stay at home." The competing sides in Yemen's civil war announced airport closures including in the capital Sana'a, a measure that will affect flights operated by United Nations organizations taking part in humanitarian relief efforts.
UAE cancels events, flights as central bank announces coronavirus fiscal plan.

"There is no mention of cost. The story could have at least reported what the drug costs in its current use against blood cancer. The story did a good job of explaining both the potential benefits and harms of the drugs. This was a particular strength of this story and made it stand out in comparison with the LA Times blog story that we also reviewed. Harms were emphasized from the outset even in the headline in the AP story but were never mentioned in the LA Times story. And this story reminded readers of the side effects encountered with another MS drug, Tysabri. Outstanding job on this issue by the AP. The story did a very good job of explaining the studies. There is no sign of disease-mongering in this story. Two apparently independent sources were quoted. The story did a good job comparing the new drugs with existing approaches to treat MS. Story explains that the drug is already sold to treat a rare blood cancer and stated that ""it's too soon to know if the pills will be approved by the government or widely adopted by physicians."" It does not report, however, as the LA TImes blog did, that ""The drug company MD Serono, an affiliate of Merck, has requested approval from the Food and Drug Administration to market the tablet. However it recently received a ""refuse to file"" letter from the FDA, which means the agency is requiring additional information or data. MD Serono said it is pursuing the matter with the FDA and hopes to re-submit its application."" We think that's a crucial piece of information that affects availability, although, of course, doctors can still prescribe it for off-label use even before the FDA acts on the new request. The novelty of ""tests of the first two oral drugs developed for treating MS"" was clear in the story. It is clear that this story did not rely on a news release."
MS pills show promise and risk, studies say

"In an April 15, 2014, debate on immigration, Democrat Julian Castro said Republican Dan Patrick filed legislation akin to the 2010 Arizona mandate that police officers ask individuals about their immigration status. ""He filed (Senate Bill) 1070-like show-me-your-papers legislation,"" the San Antonio mayor said in the debate aired by the Univision network. Castro said this action left Patrick out of step with Texas Democrats and Republicans who, he suggested, are more supportive of immigrants regardless of origin. Patrick, the Houston state senator in a May 27 runoff with incumbent David Dewhurst for the GOP lieutenant governor nomination, replied: ""No, mayor. That's a lie."" Asked to elaborate, Patrick said: ""First of all, that bill, which didn't pass, would have only come into play had police had suspicions that someone had committed a crime and then"" they would ""turn it over to"" the federal Immigration Customs Enforcement agency, he said, ""to try to keep us in line with Secure Communities,"" the program enabling fingerprints of arrested individuals to be checked against federal crime and immigration databases. Patrick further said he'd decided, ""based on things the federal government has done, that that bill will not pass and will not be effective."" We wondered if indeed Patrick filed an Arizona-type ""show-me-your-papers"" proposal. Looks like it. Castro's basis By email, Castro spokesman Jaime Castillo quoted Patrick's measure, which died without a hearing in the 2011 legislative session, and said it was similar to a vital part of Arizona's law. As recapped by Castillo, Patrick's legislation specified: ""A peace officer shall inquire into the lawful presence of any person who is lawfully stopped, detained, or arrested on other grounds if the officer has a reasonable suspicion to believe the person has violated a criminal provision of the federal immigration laws (sic)."" Castillo said Arizona's law ""included language authorizing police officers to check immigration status if they have reasonable suspicion to believe that someone is here illegally and, before"" court rulings ""to arrest without a warrant, anyone 'the officer has probable cause to believe has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States.'"" Let's look at both. Arizona law Arizona's 21-page measure, signed into law in April 2010, included provisions intended to ""work together to discourage and deter the unlawful entry and presence of aliens and economic activity by persons unlawfully present"" in the country. A key element of the law--which included state-level restrictions on human smuggling and workers congregating in search of day jobs--directed law officers at all levels to check the status of people stopped for various reasons who might appear to be in the U.S. illegally. Another section said the immigration status of arrested individuals must be checked before their release. The law also provided for officers to transport individuals lacking proof of legal residency to federal authorities. Generally, as noted in a 2010 fact check, the law required legal immigrants to carry papers that confirmed their legal status, though the U.S. Supreme Court later threw out parts of the law that would have made state crimes out of federal immigration violations, as reported by The Associated Press in June 2012. According to the AP's account, the court rejected the law's mandate that immigrants obtain or carry immigration registration papers. It also tossed language making it a state criminal offense for an illegal immigrant to seek work or hold a job, the AP said, and voided a provision permitting police to arrest suspected illegal immigrants without warrants. The court let stand the law's requirement that police officers check the status of people stopped for various reasons who might appear to be in the U.S. illegally. Even then, the AP reported, the justices said the provision could be subject to additional legal challenges. Also, they removed some teeth by prohibiting officers from arresting people on immigration charges. Patrick's proposal According to a Texas legislative website, Patrick filed his measure, SB 126, on Nov. 8, 2010 in anticipation of the 2011 legislative session. The proposal called for revising the state's Code of Criminal Procedure by specifying that a ""peace officer shall inquire into the lawful presence of any person who is lawfully stopped, detained, or arrested on other grounds if the officer has a reasonable suspicion to believe the person has violated a criminal provision of the federal immigration laws."" If the officer has ""probable cause"" to believe as much, the officer could arrest the person and ""shall identify and report the person to"" ICE, the proposal said. Also, Patrick's measure voided any local ordinance, regulation or policy interfering with an officer carrying out the described duty, furthermore giving legal immunity to an officer, agency or other governmental entity for any cause of action connected to carrying out such duties aside from intentional misconduct, recklessness or gross negligence connected with the intended law. At the time, news stories said Patrick had filed a proposal like the show-your-papers part of the Arizona law, though Patrick stressed in interviews that police officers would be required to ask a person if they were in the state legally only if they reasonably suspected otherwise. A Nov. 13, 2010, news story in the San Antonio Express-News quoted him as saying law agencies wanted the question to be required, instead of being optional, to avoid complaints of profiling. In January 2011, Patrick separately told the Associated Press and an MSNBC host that he'd been to Arizona to see its law in action. Patrick said on MSNBC: ""It's workable for our police. And then once a police officer says to someone, are you legally present, because they don't have any identification, we then give the discretion to the officer to take the next step. Is that an arrest, is it detaining that person on suspicion of another possible crime?"" Logan Spence, Patrick's lieutenant governor campaign manager, replied to our query about Patrick's proposal with an email suggesting Patrick's proposal was more narrow than the entire Arizona statute. By phone, Castillo said Castro didn't say in the debate that Patrick filed the entire Arizona law. Our ruling Castro said Patrick ""proposed Arizona-style show-me-your-papers legislation."" Patrick's unsuccessful proposal was similar to, and modeled on, Arizona's show-your-papers provision.s . The statement is accurate and there's nothing significant missing."
Julian Castro Says Dan Patrick "proposed Arizona-style show-me-your-papers legislation.