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: More than 132,000 cases of the virus have been reported in 123 countries since it emerged in December in the central Chinese city of Wuhan, WHO director-general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus told a virtual news conference. "Europe has now become the epicenter of the pandemic with more reported cases and deaths than the rest of world combined apart from China," he said in Geneva. Tedros announced that the WHO was launching a coronavirus Solidarity Response Fund. This would to allow people and organizations to contribute to help fund masks, gloves, gowns and goggles for heath workers, as well as diagnostic kits and investment in research and development, including for vaccines. Facebook will match up to $10 million in donations, while Alphabet Inc's Google will donate $5 million, the WHO and UN Foundation later announced in a joint statement. Social distancing, where people avoid close proximity or touching, is a "tried and tested method" to slow the spread of a virus but "not a panacea" that will stop transmission, the WHO's top emergency expert Dr. Mike Ryan said. Each country must decide on its own measures to protect its population, he said, adding: "But we've also consistently said that blanket travel measures in their own right will do nothing to protect an individual state." Detection and isolation of infected people, as well as tracing their contacts and wider testing, must be part of a comprehensive strategy, Ryan said. "As part of an overall comprehensive strategy, there is a place - particularly inside national borders - for potentially restricting movement between zones, as we've seen in certain places," he said. "But there is rarely a justification for blanket bans, unless of course the context and the risk defines that." U.S. President Donald Trump has announced sweeping travel restrictions to prevent people from 26 European countries - except for Britain and Ireland - from traveling to the United States in a bid to limit the virus spread. A number of other countries in recent days have announced stepped up border checks, and canceled flights to other countries, in an effort to contain the spread. Trump on Friday declared a national emergency over the fast-spreading coronavirus, opening the door to providing what he said was about $50 billion in federal aid to fight the disease. Claim: Europe is epicenter of coronavirus pandemic: WHO.
[A]: Europe has now become the epicenter of a coronavirus pandemic that has claimed 5,000 lives around the world, "a tragic milestone", the World Health Organization said on Friday.

[Q]: Paragraph: "During a recent appearance on The Daily Show, guest host John Oliver and Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., engaged in a lively exchange on health insurance. One of the issues they discussed was the high cost of health insurance. Paul, an eye surgeon, is strongly opposed to President Barack Obama's health care law. During the interview, Oliver pressed him on how to get more Americans signed up for insurance. Paul told Oliver that according to the most recent statistics, ""85 percent of people had insurance, so 15 percent didn't. So what you need to do is look at who are the 15 percent, and why don't they have insurance? Of the 15 percent who didn't have insurance, half of them made more than $50,000 a year. Why didn't they buy insurance? Because of the expense. They were young healthy people."" In this fact-check, we'll check whether the cost of insurance is the biggest barrier to uninsured Americans. In a separate report, we'll look at his claim that half of the uninsured made more than $50,000 a year. Survey data consistently shows that cost is the biggest barrier to uninsured Americans obtaining coverage. When the Kaiser Family Foundation's June 2013 health tracking poll asked uninsured respondents for the main reason they didn't have health insurance, a plurality of 40 percent cited cost. The second-biggest factor, at 26 percent, was related to employment, such as being unemployed or having a job that doesn't offer health insurance. These two reasons aren't mutually exclusive -- someone could have told the pollster that their lack of a job was the biggest reason but also find cost to be a barrier to obtaining insurance. The only answer in the poll that suggests the respondent doesn't face a cost obstacle is ""doesn't need insurance,"" which was the answer of only 11 percent. In another survey, the 2011 National Health Interview Survey, conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, researchers asked, ""Which of these are reasons you stopped being covered or don't have health insurance?'' Respondents were allowed to choose more than one reason. In this survey, too, a plurality -- 42 percent -- cited cost. Three other reasons cited are compatible with cost being an obstacle -- a lost job or a change in employment (26 percent), an employer that didn't offer insurance (11 percent) and ineligible due to age or leaving school (9 percent). Just 6 percent cited ""other,"" which included ""didn't want or need coverage,"" among other answers. ""The cost of insurance is a major reason why people are uninsured -- Sen. Paul is right about that,"" said Jonathan Oberlander, a health policy professor at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine. ""People without access to employer-sponsored coverage have a hard time affording it on their own, and that accounts for most of the uninsured."" Our ruling Paul asked, ""Why didn't (uninsured Americans) buy insurance? Because of the expense."" Survey data supports him. A plurality of respondents in major surveys of the uninsured specifically cite cost as a barrier, and relatively few indicate that going uninsured is a voluntary choice." Claim: Why didn't (uninsured Americans) buy insurance? Because of the expense.
[A]: "Paul asked, ""Why didn't (uninsured Americans) buy insurance? Because of the expense."" Survey data supports him. A plurality of respondents in major surveys of the uninsured specifically cite cost as a barrier, and relatively few indicate that going uninsured is a voluntary choice."

[Q]: Paragraph: There is no mention of the costs of Victoza. This would have been easy to includegiventhe drug is widely prescribed and pricing information is freely available on the internet. The article compares the performance of Victoza against rival diabetes drugs, so it would have been informative to have a comparison of costs as well. The story'skeyfigure, which features in the headline, is a 13% reduction in the risk of heart attack, stroke and cardiovascular death. Unfortunately this figureonly measures the relative risk reduction; i.e. the changeinrisk for patientswho got Victoza as a percentage of the actualrisk of heart attacks, strokes or cardiovascular death for patients who didn't get Victoza. However, the story does also give actual risk figuresforthe treatment and placebogroup (13.0% vs. 14.9%). This allows a keen eyed reader to calculate the absolute risk reduction: a less impressive sounding1.9%. Because of this, the story rates Satisfactory on this criterion. It's worth nothing the news release didn't include the placebo group reductions. The story does a good job of mentioning the side effects of Victoza, even pointing towards whether effects were statisticallysignificant. One omission was that the story did not mention the higher incidence of gallstone disease, a side effect that was highlighted as significant in the paper. Although the strength of the evidence is not directly interrogated, the storyprovides sufficient details about the study, such as trial size, length of trial, and where it was published. Type II diabetes is a major public health problem and, as the story mentions, patients frequently die of heart disease. No disease-mongering here. No third-party scientist is quoted, although the views of one industry analyst are paraphrased. It's not clear, however, if this analyst was actually interviewed for the story, and his comments pertain only to the market's expectations for the drug. We didn't think this was substantive enough to rate as Satisfactory. The story does mention that Novo Nordisk funded the study and the focus is squarely on the pharmaceutical industry, making the company's role clear to the reader. How Victoza performs in reducing severe cardiovascular events compared to rival drugs is mentioned numerous times. It is worth noting that there was no mention that the drug is given by injection. For individuals with diabetes reading the article, this oversight is important in that it may make them more inclined to oral medicines that are easier to take. The story makes it clear that the drug is already established on the market, calling it "top-selling" in the first line and mentioning that it is typically prescribed as a third or fourth option. The story makes clear that the purpose of this study was to meet FDA requirements. "Since 2008, U.S. regulators have demanded studies for new diabetes medicines to show there is no increase in heart risk, opening a new battleground between different treatments," it says. The story is not based solely on Novo Nordisk's newsrelease. As mentioned, some of the relative risk figures which the story leans on, as well as twosources who are quoted, are found in thenews release. Butthe writer clearly conducted independent interviews and sourced information elsewhere. Claim: Novo diabetes drug cuts heart risks by less-than-hoped 13 percentage
[A]:
The story reports on findings from a clinical trial of Novo Nordisk's diabetes drug Victoza published in the New England Journal of Medicine. The trial was designed to measure whether Victoza (generic name liraglutide), which is given by injection, was any less likely than standard diabetes care to lead to severe cardiovascular events like heart attacks or strokes in patients with type 2 diabetes. Along with reporting the key outcomes of thetrial, the storyquotesthe lead scientist involved in the study saying that diabetes treatment can begin to move from managing blood sugar levels to managing the disease's complications. The importance of finding drugs to manage cardiovascular health in diabetes is made clear, and the story does a good job of contextualizing the significance of the results, comparing Victoza's performance to rival diabetes drugs and highlighting thatthe results, although positive, were not as impressive as some pharmaceutical industry observers had hoped. The story would have been stronger if it hadmentioned the costs of Victoza, andincludedindependent expert commentary, especially to contextualize the lead scientist's claims that drugs like Victoza may herald a "shift" in how diabetes is managed. Diabetes is one of the most common chronic conditions in the world and its rate is increasing along with higher rates of obesity and an aging population. Treatment of diabetes seeks to modify the risk factors that increase diabetes-associated complications. Though much of the focus of treatment is in lowering blood sugars, decades of evidence suggest that tight sugar control doesn't decrease important risks such as heart disease, stroke and kidney failure. For this reason, treatments that not only control blood sugar but also have favorable effects on heart disease have been an area of focus. New classes of medicine such as the GLP-1's, including Victoza that is studied here, have been evaluated to examine their effect on heart disease and heart disease related death. The favorable results of this study are encouraging and will lead to increased use of these medications. Though not mentioned in this article, Victoza is given by daily injection under the skin, similar to insulin, and may decrease interest among peopleseeking the convenienceof oral medications. The high cost of the drugand others like it will be another barrier to more widespread use, which argues for additional studies in lower risk groups in whom more established, less costly and easier to take medications are currently recommended.