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.

Let me give you an example: Paragraph: "Although the story didn't cite the cost of appendectomy emergency or urgent surgery and we wish it had, we nonetheless will give it a satisfactory score because it at least cited what the editorial writer wrote, ""A secondary benefit is the savings to the hospital generated by minimizing staff and anesthesiologist presence late in the evening and during the wee hours of the morning."" As with our harms score above, although the story didn't give absolute numbers, in this case we think it was sufficient for it to report that ""The scientists found no significant difference among the groups in the patients' condition 30 days after surgery or in the length of their operation or hospital stay."" Although the story didn't give absolute numbers, in this case we think it was sufficient for it to report that ""The scientists found no significant difference among the groups in the patients' condition 30 days after surgery or in the length of their operation or hospital stay."" Despite running less than 300 words, this story did an adequate job in explaining the quality of the evidence, including pointing out limitations. No disease-mongering here. The story meets the bare minimum requirement for this criterion in that it at least cited what an editorial stated. The focus of the story was on a study comparing emergency appendectomy with surgery done up to 12 hours later or beyond. This is the whole focus of the story and one we applaud when it begins: ""Appendectomy is the most common emergency surgery in the world, but it doesn't have to be."" There were no claims made about the novelty of this research, and we may have wished for a bit more context on this. Nonetheless, the potential for guiding future care decisions was made clear. Not applicable. Given that the story only pulled excerpts from the journal article and the accompanying editorial, and didn't include any fresh quotes from interviews, we can't be sure of the extent to which it may have been influenced by a news release.". Claim: Some appendicitis cases may not require 'emergency' surgery
The answer to this example can be: We really don't understand why only a handful of mainstream news organizations reported this story. (At least in what we found.) The most common emergency surgery in the world. Rushing to emergency surgery may not carry any benefit. Waiting a few hours may be safer and less expensive. Why is that not a story? We applaud USA Today for finding time and space and clearly it didn't need to free up much space to do a good job telling the story. The story explains that as many as 300,0 appendectomies are done each year in the US. That figure alone explains why this is an important study to report.
Here is why: The output is an analysis of the claim while considering the paragraph as a reference. The output highlights the key features presented in the paragraph and explains the claim accordingly.

OK. solve this:
Paragraph: "The protests against stay-at-home orders in some state capitals have drawn comparisons to the 2010 tea party movement, but the idea of protesting such rules amid a pandemic is not just a 21st-century phenomenon. There are parallels to a protest a century ago. ""During the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic, several influential San Francisco residents including a few physicians formed the Anti-Mask League which objected to wearing masks to prevent the spread of influenza,"" stated an April 22 Facebook post. ""They held meetings of thousands of maskless people. San Francisco was ultimately one of the cities that suffered the most with a high death rate."" (The ""Spanish flu"" is a misnomer it's more accurate to refer to it as the flu pandemic of 1918.) The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The post includes a black-and-white photo of policemen wearing masks over their mouths and noses. We did a reverse Google search and found the image matches a photo of policemen in a different city Seattle wearing masks in 1918. But there are accurate statements in the text, which draws from a source at the University of Michigan. We found that there was such a thing as the Anti-Mask League in San Francisco in January 1919. The city did have one of the highest death rates from the flu, but the authors said they can't prove whether the Anti-Mask League played a role. Mak pulled from an essay by J. Alexander Navarro at the University of Michigan Center for the History of Medicine, a book by Alfred W. Crosby, America's Forgotten Pandemic and the San Francisco Chronicle archives. As the number of flu cases rose in October 1918 in San Francisco, the city passed an ordinance requiring everyone to wear a mask in public except at mealtime. Mask wearing was promoted as a symbol of patriotism. Gov. William Stephens told Californians it was a ""patriotic duty for every American citizen"" to wear a mask. City officials and local newspapers reported widespread compliance with the mask order initially, Navarro found. But some resisted the rules, and police arrested 110 people on Oct. 27 for not wearing their masks or for failing to keep them properly adjusted. The majority were fined $5, though some went to jail. In November, with cases declining, the city started to lift restrictions, although it still required masks. People flocked to public venues including theaters and sports arenas. At a boxing match, the city's mayor and city health officer were photographed not wearing masks, for which they were fined. Later that month, the mayor annulled the ordinance. But new cases quickly emerged, and the mask ordinance was reinstated in January. Opponents formed the Anti-Mask League, multiple news articles in January 1919 show. Crosby wrote in his book that the league consisted of ""public-spirited citizens, physicians and fanatics."" At a meeting of the Anti-Mask League ""resolutions were passed denouncing the mask ordinance as contrary to the desires of the majority of the people,"" the San Francisco Examiner reported. Nearly 2,000 people attended. The league got their wish, and the mask rule was rescinded Feb. 1. Navarro and colleagues studied how 43 cities fared during the 1918 pandemic and published their results in the Journal of the American Medical Association. They found that many cities experienced second waves after ending social distancing. San Francisco had one of the higher excess-death rates: 673 per 100,000 people. ""It is impossible to say for certainty that the advent of the Anti-Mask League played a role in that outcome,"" Navarro told PolitiFact ""Undoubtedly, having over 2,000 people gather would have helped continue to spread influenza."" The main factors in San Francisco's outcome, however, were failure to implement interventions such as social distancing quickly and failure to keep them in place long enough. Navarro said he didn't find something similar to the Anti-Mask League in other cities. Only a few other cities implemented mandatory face mask orders, while others recommended that the public use masks. A Facebook post said during the 1918 flu pandemic, San Francisco residents formed an ""Anti-Mask League."" San Francisco ""was ultimately one of the cities that suffered the most with a high death rate."" Residents angry about the reinstatement of a mask order did form the Anti-Mask League in January 1919. It appeared to be short-lived, as the mask rule was quickly rescinded. Researchers found that San Francisco did have one of the higher death rates in the country, but it is impossible to say whether that was directly related to the mask protests. A photo of masked police officers that accompanies the post is real, but it shows officers in Seattle." Claim: During the 1918 flu pandemic, San Francisco residents formed the "Anti-Mask League." San Francisco "was ultimately one of the cities that suffered the most with a high death rate."
Answer:
Some people have protested stay-at-home orders in recent weeks with public demonstrations. During the flu pandemic in 1918, protesters formed an Anti-Mask League in San Francisco. San Francisco was among several cities that experienced a second wave of cases.