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.

Example Input: Paragraph: The National Health Commission on Sunday also issued a notice asking for improvement in testing capacity and quality nationwide. Nine of the new cases were imported infections, data from commission showed. Authorities reported that total confirmed cases across mainland China had risen to 82,735 with 4,632 deaths as of April 18. The northeastern province of Heilongjiang has seen a rise in infected travellers arriving from Russia in recent weeks, and is now battling to contain a flare-up in local cases. Heilongjiang has reported 39 new local cases in the past 10 days, or more than 50% of all new 73 locally transmitted cases reported in the mainland during the same period. Most were related to one imported case in the provincial capital, Harbin. On Friday, 18 officials in Harbin, including a vice mayor, were punished. To help contain the outbreak, the Heilongjiang government is cautioning against family gatherings, cross infections at hospitals, and slow reporting in epidemic investigations, it said on the provincial government's website. "The biggest political task at present is to stop the rebound and spread of the epidemic," Wang Yongkang, vice governor of Heilongjiang, was quoted as saying. Elsewhere in mainland China, all areas in central Hubei province including Wuhan, the epicentre of the outbreak in China, are now considered low risk. However, a Beijing central district is seen as high-risk, according to a social media post by the State Council, or Cabinet. On April 15, the Chinese capital reported three local cases, all of which were linked to an imported infection. Areas that are considered of medium-risk in China include two districts in Harbin, the city of Suifenhe in Heilongjiang, two districts in the southern city of Guangzhou and Jiaozhou city in eastern Shandong province. Separately, authorities reported 44 new asymptomatic cases of coronavirus, including three which were imported. Such cases, where patients test positive but show no clinical symptoms such as a cough or fever, are excluded from China's tally of confirmed cases. In urging better testing, the National Health Commission said all large general hospitals need to set up laboratories that meet certain requirements and can conduct coronavirus testing independently. Since March, an average 54,000 tests have been conducted a day in Hubei province and that rose to 89,000 tests on April 17, Liu Dongru, a Hubei health commission official, told a news conference on Sunday. In Beijing, the number of institutions able to conduct nucleic acid testing has risen to 50 from 17 in early February, a municipal health commission official said on Sunday. In areas under great pressure, especially at land borders, local governments should help county-level medical institutions obtain nucleic acid testing capability, the commission said. Testing should be conducted by qualified medical institutions and independent medical laboratories, it said, adding that training for medical staff should be stepped up and testing operations standardised to reduce problems with the accuracy of testing. Claim: China's new coronavirus cases fall, eyes on northeastern province.
Example Output: China on Sunday reported 16 new coronavirus cases but no deaths while authorities remained on guard against a major resurgence and monitored the spread of cases in Heilongjiang province.

Example Input: 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
Example Output: 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.

Example Input: Paragraph: "U.S. Rep. Jackie Speier, D-San Mateo, is one of California's most prominent advocates for gun control -- and one of the few members of Congress to personally experience and survive gun violence. Speierwas shot five times at point blank range in 1978 on a trip accompanying Rep. Leo Ryan to Jonestown, the remote commune in Guyana where 909 people died from cyanide poisoning and other means. Speier was a legal adviser to Ryan, who along with four others were shot and killed in an ambush near the compound. Speier was rescued a day later. Since then, she's spent much of her career in politics leading the call for gun safety. It was no surprise Speierspoke out against gun violence on Dec. 14, 2016, the fourth anniversary of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. The shooter killed 20 students, ages six and seven, along with six adult staff members in what's considered the deadliest mass shooting at a school in U.S. history. On the anniversary, Speierposted an image on Twitter of herself holding a card reading #EndGunViolence. Above the image she claimed: ""Since the Sandy Hook tragedy, more than seven children PER DAY have died from gun violence."" We wanted to know whether the startling and somber statistic was true. We set out on a fact check. Our research A spokeswoman for Speier cited the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence as the source of the statistic. She said the campaign used information from an online database of fatal injury reports maintained by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. We did not hear back from a spokesman for the Brady Campaign. But we found a similar statistic on the organization's website: ""Every day, 7 children and teens die from gun violence."" The website notes that it crunched CDC data for children and young people through age 19. The federal agency is considered a leading authority on mortality and injury statistics. It includes data through 2015. To examine Speier's claim, we searched the database for the number of young people who died in connection with guns from the start of 2013 through 2015. Those are the most recent available years following the Sandy Hook shooting. We found 7,838 deaths in connection with firearms for people ages 0 through 19. That works out to 7.15 deaths a day during this three-year period -- which matches Speier's claim of ""more than seven"" per day. These include all types of gun deaths from accidents to homicides to suicides. About 36 percent resulted from suicides. Some might take issue with Speier lumping in 18 year-olds and 19 year-olds as children. Gun deaths for these two ages accounted for nearly half of the 7,838 young people killed in the two-year period. Here's a look at the breakdown of deaths by age group: 0-4 years: 247 5-9 years: 218 10-14 years: 847 15-19 years: 6,526 The National Institute of Justice, a research arm of the U.S. Department of Justice, has stated that young people aged 15 to 24 are the group most at risk for gun violence. If considering only elementary school aged children, the total who die in connection with guns would be roughly one every four days -- still a tragic number, but not close to seven per day. We interpreted Speier's use of the word children, however, to include a broader group of young people, including teenagers. Our ruling California Congresswoman Jackie Speier recently claimed: ""Since the Sandy Hook tragedy, more than seven children PER DAY have died from gun violence."" Speier's claim is backed up by the CDC's fatal injury report data, which shows an average of 7.15 young people per day, aged 0 to 19, died in connection with firearms between 2013 and 2015. It's important to note these include all types of gun deaths: accidents, homicides and suicides. All gun deaths are violent, but Speier's statement could be interpreted as only including homicides or accidents. Finally, Speier's claim might also lead some to think she's talking about young school aged children, given that she invokes an elementary school shooting. The data show teenagers and young adults make up the vast majority of deaths due to guns in America, while elementary aged children account for a small fraction. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, the source Speier relied on, offers a more complete look at this statistic on its website. It notes that children ""and teens"" are included in the seven deaths per day. Speier's statement is on the right track. But it could have used some clarifications. The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. Claim: Since the Sandy Hook tragedy, more than seven children PER DAY have died from gun violence.
Example Output:
California Congresswoman Jackie Speier recently claimed: "Since the Sandy Hook tragedy, more than seven children PER DAY have died from gun violence." Speier's claim is backed up by the CDC's fatal injury report data, which shows an average of 7.15 young people per day, aged 0 to 19, died in connection with firearms between 2013 and 2015. It's important to note these include all types of gun deaths: accidents, homicides and suicides. All gun deaths are violent, but Speier's statement could be interpreted as only including homicides or accidents. Finally, Speier's claim might also lead some to think she's talking about young school aged children, given that she invokes an elementary school shooting. The data show teenagers and young adults make up the vast majority of deaths due to guns in America, while elementary aged children account for a small fraction. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, the source Speier relied on, offers a more complete look at this statistic on its website. It notes that children "and teens" are included in the seven deaths per day. Speier's statement is on the right track. But it could have used some clarifications.