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: Rather than outline specific recommendations, the 300-page document is meant to be a resource for state regulators as they begin the process in 2020 of drafting formal rules aimed at reducing methane emissions. Despite industry claims that companies have been able to reduce emissions while still setting production records, environmentalists have been pushing hard for more regulations at the state level to target methane leaks and the practice of venting and flaring. The report is the result of numerous meetings over the last four months by the Methane Advisory Panel, a group of more than two dozen experts knowledgeable about various parts of the oil and gas business. The panel included industry representatives, environmental lawyers and experts from Los Alamos National Laboratory, Colorado State University and the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology. The discussions centered on topics like compressor engines, storage tanks and pneumatic valves. New Mexico Environment Secretary James Kenney said the effort put into the report is unparalleled in its thoroughness. "This is exactly the baseline information we need to effectively tackle methane emissions in our state," he said. The state will be accepting public comment on the report through Feb. 20. XTO Energy President Staale Gjervik said the company's experience shows methane emissions can be mitigated in a cost-effective way but that full industry participation is important. XTO was among those represented on the panel. The report highlights various strategies to reduce emissions, such as switching to low- or no-bleed pneumatic controllers and increasing leak detection and monitoring equipment. The need for more infrastructure also was identified as a possible way to reduce venting and flaring although the report stated flaring, or the burning off of excess natural gas during extraction, was a necessary part of the process. The state will host public meetings in the coming months to discuss the findings with community members across the state. Stronger regulations for methane emissions will be critical as the oil boom in New Mexico continues, said Hillary Hull of the Environmental Defense Fund, another member of the advisory panel. She said the state's process in developing the analysis was been inclusive, representing countless hours of research and input from a diverse cross-section of stakeholders. "Next year will be the critical time for moving forward on enforceable, nationally-leading methane rules that protect our air, address the climate crisis and improve education funding for New Mexico families and future generations," she said. Earlier this month, trade groups representing the oil and gas industries in New Mexico and Texas release an analysis that showed a decline in methane emissions in both states as production tripled. The research also showed that the amount of methane burned off or emitted per barrel of oil equivalent was reduced by 64 percent in the Permian Basin during the past seven years. Meanwhile, the report cited a 210% increase in oil production in the Permian since 2011. Ryan Flynn, executive director at the New Mexico Oil and Gas Association said Permian producers are leading the industry when it comes to environmental practices and emissions reductions. "As energy markets across the globe look to America for their energy needs, we are creating the solutions of the future to deliver cleaner, more reliable energy to people and communities in every corner of the planet," he said in a statement. Claim: New Mexico releases methane emissions report.
[A]: An advisory panel has released a technical report that covers how emissions are produced by oil and natural gas development and how New Mexico might be able to curb pollution from the industry.

[Q]: Paragraph: "As schools across the country open for the uncertain, unprecedented school year to come, opinions are split on how to do so safely. Some districts have opted for completely virtual learning. Others will try a mix of both online and in-person classes, or will send younger children to school while older kids stay home, or will phase students back to the classroom gradually. Others still are calling for schools to reopen completely for those who feel well enough to teach and attend, and who aren't especially vulnerable to COVID-19. One such voice is U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wisconsin, who in an Aug. 13, 2020 radio interview with Milwaukee talk show host Steve Scaffidi on WTMJ-AM discussed why he believes students need to return to school in person this fall. For younger people, Johnson asserted, ""seasonal flu is actually, in many cases, a deadlier virus if they contract that."" Is Johnson correct that COVID-19 is less deadly for children than the flu? Let's dig in. COVID was less harsh on kids than the flu, this year's stats show To back up his claim, Johnson's office sent statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on flu and COVID-19 deaths among Americans under age 18. During the 2018-19 flu season, the CDC reported approximately 480 flu deaths among children ages 0-17, about 30% of whom had a lab-confirmed case of influenza. Comparably, 90 American youth have died from coronavirus complications from the beginning of the pandemic through mid-August, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics. More than 46,000 children were hospitalized for flu in that 2018-19 period. The hospitalization rate among children 5 to 17 was 39.2 children per 100,000 children. For COVID-19, that hospitalization rate is 6 per 100,000 children ages 5 to 17, the CDC says. In a report detailing the differences between COVID-19 and the flu, the CDC states that ""the risk of complications for healthy children is higher for flu compared to COVID-19."" And data from Wisconsin echoes that sentiment. Since the pandemic began, no children have died from COVID-19 complications, according to state Department of Health Services death data, and 147 people ages 0-19 have been hospitalized. In contrast, three pediatric flu deaths occurred during this year's flu season, DHS data show, and 605 kids ages 17 and under have been hospitalized. The data show there have been fewer childhood deaths from COVID-19 so far this year than from the seasonal flu. The hold-up, of course, lies in nuance, said Dr. Jon Temte, associate dean for public health and community engagement within UW-Madison's School of Medicine and Public Health. ""U.S. schools have been out (and) mostly closed since March, thus extremely limiting cases of SARS-CoV-2 in children. Conversely, we rarely close schools for influenza, thus allowing an attack rate of 30-40% in school-aged children,"" Temte wrote in an Aug. 27, 2020 email to PolitiFact Wisconsin. That is, the flu has been able to spread through children more commonly than COVID-19, creating more cases, more complications and more deaths. Other experts agree. Dr. Chad Vercio, chair of pediatrics at Riverside University Health System in California, said children's risk from the coronavirus depends on how widespread the virus is in any given area, and that ""it is unknown"" if COVID hospitalization rates would rise once schools reopen. And though the early data suggests that COVID-19 is not as bad for children as the flu, it's just that: Early. Dr. Vidya Mony, an infectious disease expert with Santa Clara Valley Medical Center in San Jose, Calif., said there isn't enough data yet to say indisputably that COVID risks are lower for kids. Johnson claimed that in many cases, the seasonal flu was a deadlier virus for youth than COVID-19. The numbers show that this year, that was the case. More children died from flu complications than from COVID-19, and were hospitalized at higher rates for the flu. But experts caution that we don't have enough data to paint the full picture so early in the game, and that schools shutting down in early spring may have driven down coronavirus case rates in children meaning we can't be sure exactly how the virus will move through young people when more of them are potentially getting exposed. Our definition for is ""the statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information."" That fits here." Claim: For younger people, seasonal flu is "in many cases" a deadlier virus than COVID-19
[A]: Hospitalizations and deaths among children are higher for the seasonal flu than they are for COVID-19 The CDC states that the risk of complications for healthy children is higher for flu compared to COVID-19, though kids with underlying medical conditions will be at greater risk for both But experts caution that we might not yet see the whole picture of how dangerous the coronavirus is for kids because schools largely shut down when it started to spread, shielding them from that potential place of exposure.

[Q]: Paragraph: We were pleased to see that the story included cost estimates of both soy supplements and of hormone replacement therapy pills. The story explained that "women who took hormones had an average of 24 fewer hot flashes per month, while those who took soy had 12 per month." Adequate job reminding readers of the risks reported from the 2002 Women's Health Inititiative study (although we wish it had given the absolute risk data). And it cited what the NIH reports as side effects of soy supplements but again without numbers. Adequate nonetheless. Adequate job. The story explained that soy hasn't been studied as much as HRT for hot flashes and that "doctors don't know exactly how it works." It explained that this was a study of studies. The story also includes a link to the study itself, which is always a nice touch. No disease mongering. The story included some interest factoids such as the average number of hot flashes per month reported by women in the studies. One apparently independent expert was quoted in the story. We suppose that in an ideal world. the story could have at least commented on other alternative options that have been explored for hot flashes. But the story adequately discussed the comparison results from the study, and we appreciate that it ended with a comment about "watchful waiting" as well reminding readers that not everyone chooses to take something for hot flashes. Not applicable. The availability of soy supplements or of hormone replacement therapy is not in question. No inordinate claims of novelty for either approach. It's clear that the story did not rely solely on a news release. Claim: Hormones may be better than soy for hot flashes
[A]:
One of the only suggestions we would make is that the story could have quantified potential harms. It didn't quantify harms of estrogen (about which there is a great deal of evidence) nor of soy (for which there is a scant evidence base). However, the article does an acceptable job of acknowledging risks reported elsewhere for both treatments. Hot flashes are such a hot button issue for so many women. It is refreshing to see a clear, straightforward daily news report that delivers most of the information women need to evaluate a new study.