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.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: "Fox Business host Lou Dobbs, a vocal supporter of President Donald Trump and his allies, challenged the president's top health official recently on the administration's handling of the 2019 coronavirus outbreak. Dobbs criticized Health and Human Secretary Alex Azar over a lack of transparency in the agency's handling of COVID-19, which has infected nearly 91,000 people globally across 73 countries and led to more than nine American deaths. ""There's a better ratio of testing for the coronavirus in other countries than we maintain here,"" Dobbs said during the March 2 interview on his TV show. ""We're actually screening fewer people because we don't have appropriate testing."" Azar countered that the Trump administration has taken recent steps to roll back regulations and increase the availability of diagnostic test kits to ""hundreds and thousands and millions."" The United States is set to significantly expand its testing capabilities in the coming days and weeks, but Dobbs is correct that the country has lagged behind other nations so far. ""It is true that diagnostic capacity in the U.S. has been lower than in some other countries, but that is changing,"" said Caitlin Rivers, an epidemiologist at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. It's hard to pinpoint how many people have been tested for the coronavirus, both in the U.S. and around the world. The World Health Organization doesn't track the number of tests administered in each country, and the numbers that are available are constantly updating. In a statement to PolitiFact, a Fox News spokesperson representing Dobbs cited data from the WorldOMeter, a real-time tool that ""shows estimated current numbers based on statistics and projections from the most reputable official organizations,"" according to its website. Using estimates derived from official government sources, the WorldOMeter says at least eight countries South Korea, Italy, Austria, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, Finland, Vietnam and Turkey have given more tests relative to the size of their populations than the United States. That lines up with experts' analyses and with what multiple news outlets have reported. Marc Lipsitch, professor of epidemiology at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, said South Korea ""has screened at least thousands, and Guangdong, China, has screened at least hundreds of thousands,"" citing a WHO report on the outbreak in China, where the virus was first detected. South Korea ramped up testing by building drive-thru screening clinics for speedy assessments, according to local reports. Other countries, like Switzerland, the United Kingdom and Italy have also conducted thousands of diagnostic tests. ""We have done nothing like what other countries have done,"" Lipsitch said, noting that the U.S. had, until recently, limited not only the number of labs that were allowed to conduct tests on suspected cases, but also the number of patients that were eligible to be screened. It's difficult to say just how far behind the U.S. has fallen, due to the murkiness around the number of administered tests. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention stopped releasing a public count of tests on March 2. The administration's public statements haven't cleared it up. On Feb. 29, the CDC reported testing 472 Americans. A day later, Azar told ABC News the U.S. had tested over 3,600 people. And a spokesperson for HHS, Azar's agency, told us on March 3 that the CDC had tested samples from more than 1,200 patients. ""I don't know how to track U.S. tests any more,"" Lipsitch said. Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar speaks at the White House about the coronavirus on Feb. 28, 2020, in Washington. (AP/Vucci) The CDC stopped posting testing data as more state and local public-health labs have been brought into the fold, said Nancy Messonnier, a top CDC official, said during a March 3 briefing. ""With more and more testing done at states, these numbers would not be representative of the testing being done nationally,"" she said. An HHS spokesperson told us that the department doesn't know how many additional tests have been administered by those state and local labs, adding that those labs can now test up to 15,000 people and are expected to be able to test as many as 75,000 people by March 6. The U.S. test count should rise into the millions as IDT, a commercial manufacturer, and other commercial and academic labs begin producing their own tests soon, according to HHS. The government's initial testing effort was hindered by flaws with the CDC's early test kits and restrictions that had limited which labs could run the tests and which patients could be tested. When the first U.S. coronavirus was detected, the country brushed aside the WHO test used by other nations and leaned on the CDC to develop and mass produce a more complicated test capable of detecting other viruses in addition to the coronavirus, according to reports. The test kits went out in early February. But some state labs that received them reported that flaws in the tests were triggering inconclusive results. Those states had to ship samples out to the CDC's offices in Atlanta for results until the CDC fixed the problem weeks later. Since then, the Food and Drug Administration has given labs and hospitals across the country the go-ahead to administer their own tests before the FDA finishes reviewing them, so long as those tests are proven to work. That should lead to more testing, experts said. The CDC also modified its screening criteria to expand testing for some people with severe respiratory symptoms who did not travel to China or come into known contact with a coronavirus patient. Previously, travel to China or exposure to the virus were preconditions for screening. Adequate testing is essential to getting an accurate count of U.S. cases, experts said. Testing is also key for treating patients and identifying people who might be infected but don't show symptoms, said Richard Watanabe, professor of preventive medicine at the University of Southern California. ""The latest data suggests the incubation period for COVID-19 can be as long as a couple of weeks,"" Watanabe said. Despite the recent acceleration, Lipsitch said U.S. testing is happening ""very slowly and at a level that is still paltry"" compared with some other countries. Dobbs said that the United States is ""actually screening fewer people (for the coronavirus than other countries) because we don't have appropriate testing."" Experts told us that to date, the United States has lagged behind other countries, though numbers are imprecise. An error with the CDC's early test kits contributed to the United States' relatively low screening numbers. The administration has taken steps to make testing more widely available. With that additional information." Claim: The United States is "actually screening fewer people (for the coronavirus than other countries) because we don't have appropriate testing.
[EX A]: The CDC has stopped publicly reporting the number of tests it's administered. So far, the United States has lagged behind other nations in terms of coronavirus testing. It has recently taken steps to ramp up its testing capabilities. Until recently, the U.S. had insisted that only the CDC's test could be used despite flaws in some early kits and that only certain patients could get tested.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: Earlier this week, officials at the National Health Service (NHS) in England recommended that hospitals cancel all non-urgent appointments and operations until next month. May, during a visit to a hospital outside London, said she recognized it is frustrating for patients who had their operations postponed. "I know it is difficult, I know it is frustrating, I know it is disappointing for people and I apologize," she told Sky News. A flu outbreak, colder weather and high levels of respiratory illnesses have put hospitals in England under strain with many operating at or near full capacity. The issue is potentially damaging for May, already weakened after losing a parliamentary majority in last year's election and struggling to pacify her deeply divided party as she navigates the final year of Brexit negotiations. The NHS, which delivers free care for all and accounts for a third of government spending on public services, is typically one of the most important issues for voters during elections and one which is often regarded as a weakness for May's Conservative party. Opposition parties regularly accuse the government of failing to adequately fund the health service. "Ministers refused to provide the funding top NHS officials said was necessary and now patients are paying the price," said Vince Cable, leader of the Liberal Democrats. Founded in 1948 by the opposition Labour Party, the NHS is a source of huge pride for many Britons who are able to access free care from cradle to grave. But tight budgets, an aging population and increasingly complex medical needs have left many hospitals struggling during the winter in recent years. The pressure continues to grow, according to new data on Thursday. The number of patients stuck in ambulances for at least an hour almost doubled to more 4,700 cases during the Christmas week compared with the week before. Department of Health guidelines say ambulance crews should be able to hand patients over to hospital staff within 15 minutes of arrival at hospital. The average bed occupancy for the Christmas week was 91.7 percent. Doctors say that anything above 85 percent is unsafe. The conditions have led some doctors taking to Twitter to vent their frustrations. One London-based doctor wrote that conditions were so bad that he was practicing "battlefield medicine", while another apologized for the "3rd world conditions" caused by overcrowding. Claim: British PM May apologizes as overwhelmed hospitals cancel non-emergency operations.
[EX A]: Britain's Prime Minister Theresa May apologized on Thursday to tens of thousands of patients whose operations were canceled to free up staff and beds to deal with emergency patients.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: The story provided explicit information on cost. The story reported on the possible benefit of the drug to slightly reduce the incidence of prostate cancer progression; it also mentioned that it might help with anxiety for those who decided to forego immediate invasive treatment. Most meaningfully, it also included early in the story the expert perspective that "most of these men do very well with no treatment at all." We wish the story had indicated whether the differences were statistically significant and clinically significant in the percentage of men whose cancer progressed or the percentage of men in whom cancer was not found upon repeat biopsy. For example, to say that "cancer got worse" what does that mean? Is it a worsening of clinical significance? Unlike the competing HealthDay story, this story was sure to include a discussion of harms. Noting that the researchers had indicated that no new additional harms or side effects had been observed, the story then went on to detail the common known side effects. The story did not, however, discuss the issue that the use of this drug, in the new context described, could result in men taking it daily for decades and the possibility of longer-term harms have not yet been studied. Nonethless, a satisfactory job. The story indicated that the study being reported on was to be presented at a meeting and that there had been a teleconference before the fact to provide the media with information coming out of the meeting. Unlike the competing HealthDay story, the AP story appeared to include independent perspectives from people they interviewed outside the teleconference setting. The story did an adequate job explaining the evidence. And the independent perspectives helped a great deal. The story did not engage in overt disease mongering. Unlike the competing HealthDay story, the AP story did appear to include perspectives of some experts who were not on the teleconference and some who were not directly involved in the study discussed. The true choices of choosing active surveillance or "watchful waiting", of taking a drug, or of "rushing to have treatmetns that can leave them with urinary or sexual problems was very clear. The story clearly indicated that it was describing another use for a medication that is already available to consumers. The story was explicit that it was reporting on a possible new indication for a drug already in the market place. It was clear from the story that a news conference ahead of the meeting was the genesis of this story; that said, other experts in the field appear to have been consulted for this piece. Claim: Drug may slow growth of early prostate cancer
[EX A]:
This story is a very measured discussion of early stage prostate cancer and the results of a new study that confirms that active surveillance is a viable option for men and that for those choosing active surveillance, taking a medication currently used in the treatment of BPH may be helpful, but does not appear to be necessary. The story framed the take-home message early and ended the same way. Early quote: ""We're identifying men who are not likely to need even a pill," said Dr. Maha Hussain, a University of Michigan cancer specialist. Ending quote: "If it was me, I'd choose active surveillance," said Dr. Howard Sandler, a prostate cancer specialist at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles. One quibble we have is that the story didn't challenge the statements that referred to "active surveillance" or "watchful waiting" even after the drug was in use. That's no longer wait-and-see. That's active treatment. Thousands of men each year may be diagnosed with early stage prostate cancer. News stories that provide accurate, clear, and concise information about the disease and its treatment options are priceless.