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: Austria has closed schools, restaurants, bars, theatres and other gathering places, including non-essential shops. People have been told to stay at home and work from there if possible. The country has reported 108 deaths and more than 9,000 cases, fewer than its neighbours Italy and Switzerland and within its health system's capacity so far, but Kurz told a news conference its intensive care capacity could be exceeded by mid-April. "Many cannot imagine what is heading our way within weeks, but the truth is that this is the calm before the storm. And to tell how horrific that storm can be, you can look at our neighbour Italy," Kurz said, referring to hospitals unable to cope with the number of sick people, and hundreds of dead a day. The rate of infection remains "far too high", Kurz said, adding that less than medical-grade masks would be distributed this week, probably from Wednesday. "As of the moment, these masks are handed out in front of supermarkets it will be compulsory to wear them in supermarkets," Kurz said, adding that the aim in the medium-term was for people to wear them in public more generally as well. While the masks would not protect the wearer against infection, they would stop them sneezing or coughing on others and potentially infecting them, he added. The World Health Organization has, however, been sceptical about such measures. "There is no specific evidence to suggest that the wearing of masks by the mass population has any particular benefit," Dr Mike Ryan, the WHO's top emergencies expert, told a news conference later on Monday while adding that he was not aware of Austria's measure specifically. "In fact there is some evidence to suggest the opposite in the misuse or (not) wearing a mask properly or fitting it properly or taking it off and all the other risks that are otherwise associated with that." Austria is also carrying out tests on a representative sample of 2,000 people to get a clearer understanding of how much of the population has been exposed to the virus, Kurz said, adding that Austria was one of the first countries in Europe to do so. The results will be available at the end of the week. Claim: Austria to make basic face masks compulsory in supermarkets.

A: Austria will require shoppers to wear basic face masks in supermarkets in a bid to slow the still too-rapid spread of the coronavirus, Chancellor Sebastian Kurz said on Monday.
****
Q: Paragraph: The release does not mention cost. The FDA evaluates drugs without consideration of cost, so it's understandable that they wouldn't comment on it and that's why we're rating this Not Applicable. But let's be real here: The value of a new drug is a function not just of how well it works, but its cost-effectiveness. So we look forward to the day when any news release about a new drug even one from the FDA will include some mention of cost in its message. This release gives the preliminary results from a single study of 310 patients. Because the drug is experimental, long-term results haven't been studied. Of the 310 patients enrolled in the lone trial upon which the approval is based, 14.8 percent showed some shrinkage of tumors during the assessment period lasting from 2.1 to about 13.8 months. For a subset of patients who were classified as having a positive response to PD-L1 expression, the response was 26 percent. As noted above, tumor shrinkage doesn't always lead to improvements in survival or quality of life. It is a surrogate endpoint a substitute for the main outcome which is survival. Although this drug looks promising, to be fully transparent about its benefits as currently known, the release should have explained this. As noted in the "Summary," another larger study is underway to assess the drug's impact on extending life and improving quality of life. The release includes a description of side effects of this treatment. The most common ones included fatigue, decreased appetite, nausea, urinary tract infection, fever (pyrexia) and constipation. The release also mentions that patients taking the drug have an increased risk of infection and serious side effects that are "immune-mediated." We would have liked a bit more context on what this term means for patients. The release outlines that this is the very first clinical trial of this compound for safety and efficacy, and under which regulatory paths the drug was assessed, including "breakthrough therapy designation, priority review status and accelerated approval." We're giving this release the benefit of the doubt and rating it Satisfactory for its bare bones description of the trial (and since we already addressed the lack of long-term survival data in the "Benefits" section.) As it stands, the results from the small trial were preliminary and short-term and did not reflect long-term survival. We would have liked to see a reference or link to the completed trial where one could look at the results to assess independently or learn more about the outcomes. We think the release should have provided more data on the patient demographics, the treatment regimen (dosing amount and schedule) as well as the range in tumor reduction. There is no disease mongering. This release describes the approval of a new drug by a regulatory agency, but we'd still like to know who sponsored the study that's the basis for the approval. It's not enough to state who markets the drug. The release does not give us very much information about alternatives. These patients had already received other therapy and their cancer had recurred, so it is implied that they had no other alternatives. But this isn't stated very clearly. We can assume (and it seems evident) that the platinum-based therapy that the patients didn't respond to initially is the usual treatment. The FDA's approval of a drug clears the way for the drug sponsor to scale up production and begin marketing and selling the product. (The FDA doesn't state this explicitly but it can be inferred.) A NYT article said the drug would be available in about two months. The release clearly states this product is first of its kind for this type of cancer. We found no unjustifiable language. Claim: FDA approves new, targeted treatment for bladder cancer

A: The Food and Drug Administration approved a new immunotherapy drug that acts as a "checkpoint" inhibitor in patients whose bladder cancer (urothelial carcinoma) has not responded to other chemotherapy. The drug, atezolizumab (marketed as Tecentriq), showed effectiveness in about 14 percent of 310 patients in a very preliminary study. The release notes that the trial measured tumor shrinkage as the main outcome. It didn't note, as a NYT article did, and important for this type of trial, that it is unknown whether the treatment makes a difference in survival. A larger study is being done to examine this. Whether it makes a difference in quality of life is also important and will presumably be examined in the larger trial. The National Cancer Institute (NCI) estimates 76,960 new cases of bladder cancer and 16,390 deaths from this disease in 2016. This approval of a new drug for treating bladder cancer is part of a wider area of research into immunotherapy, in which drugs target mechanisms of the human immune response. Patients with the PD-L1 protein highly expressed in their tumors appear to be responding best to the drug. This drug is an example of targeted chemotherapy which is becoming more important as treatments can be fine-tuned to the cancers of individual patients. In patients with intractable cancers, immunotherapy appears to offer some new hope while also bringing sobering questions about affordability and disparity of access by income. The drugs are typically very expensive with some estimates putting the treatment cost for a single patient as high as $1 million. When the FDA gives a compound a "breakthrough" designation, some physicians and patients can misunderstand what that means. That's a topic recently explored in this post.
****
Q: Paragraph: Dozens of children and young adults have been diagnosed with Ewing sarcoma and other forms of cancer in a four-county region of southwestern Pennsylvania where energy companies have drilled more than 3,500 wells since 2008. An investigation by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette this year identified six Ewing cases in a single school district. The cause of Ewing sarcoma is unknown, and there's been no evidence linking the Pennsylvania cases to drilling and hydraulic fracturing, the method that energy companies use to extract natural gas from shale rock. The American Cancer Society says there are "no known lifestyle-related or environmental causes" of Ewing, a rare bone cancer that's diagnosed in about 200 children and teens across the U.S. each year. But the families, joined by anti-drilling activists, demanded that Wolf launch an environmental investigation into the cancers that have devastated their loved ones. "I want answers, and I want answers now. Give us the truth," said Carla Marratto Cumming, whose 19-year-old brother, Luke Blanock, died of Ewing sarcoma in 2016. "What's going on is killing our families, and it's not OK." The region's lawmakers recently secured a $100,000 state grant for the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center to perform genetic testing of Ewing patients, but the families said it's not enough. They gave Wolf an earful when he met with them in the hallway outside his office at the Capitol on Monday. Luke Blanock's mother, Janice, invited Wolf to go on a tour of fracking sites "to see exactly how fracking is wreaking havoc on our kids, families, our homes, everything." Breaking down, she continued: "You have to see it in person. You can't even understand what we've gone through." Wolf promised to make the childhood cancers a priority and said his health department is looking into the possibility of additional research. In a statement, his spokesman said the potential research would "explore possible effects of natural resource extraction, especially regarding these rare childhood cancers. It is imperative that we more thoroughly research and advance the science on the health effects of fracking by building upon previous research and investigating the concern that there is a relationship between fracking and childhood cancers." A Pennsylvania Department of Health investigation earlier this year did not confirm a cancer cluster in the region, a finding that was met with skepticism by activists who say the agency failed to include some cases in its study. Gas industry officials, meanwhile, called for an "objective, rigorous and science-based approach" to "these complicated and heartbreaking health matters." "While some continue to sensationalize tragedy, there's absolutely no credible link between natural gas-related activities which are strongly regulated and instances of rare childhood cancers," said David Spigelmyer, president of the Marcellus Shale Coalition. Claim: Pennsylvania families demand investigation into rare cancers.

A:
The families of young people diagnosed with a rare childhood cancer confronted Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf on Monday over what they called his administration's insufficient response to a health crisis they blame on pollution from the shale gas industry.
****