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: But COVID-19 is shaking her views. The woman who would identify herself only as Stephanie, citing a fear of reprisals from committed anti-vaxxers, says she is now 50:50 on taking a vaccine should one be discovered for the respiratory disease caused by the new coronavirus. "I've definitely thought about it," she told Reuters by phone from the United States, also expressing frustration at what she considers the anti-vax community's downplaying of the pandemic's seriousness. "We're all being affected by this virus, schools closing, young people in hospital, and they still say it's a hoax." As the world's scientists and pharmaceutical companies seek a cure for the coronavirus, other anti-vaxxers are gearing up for a fight against any potential new vaccine. "Refuse, demonstrate," said a Briton on Facebook in response to a post asking people how they would react if a vaccine was made mandatory. But some virologists say the quest for a vaccine is so widely supported that resistance will be eroded. The latest national surveys by pollster ORB International for the Vaccine Confidence Project (VCP), which monitors attitudes to immunisation, appear to support this idea. In France, where a 2018 poll showed one in three people did not view vaccines as safe, just 18% would refuse a coronavirus vaccine now, according to the VCP poll of around 1,000 people on March 18, a day after France locked down. In Australia, the VCP's figure was also 7%, while Britain, where about 2,000 people were polled, and Austria registered 5% opposition in polls there a week later. "If a vaccine were made available tomorrow, everyone would jump to get it," said Laurent-Henri Vignaud, who co-authored a history of France's anti-vax movement. That view was challenged by Mary Holland, vice-chair of American non-profit group Children's Health Defense, which is critical of vaccination in the United States. "I don't think this virus fundamentally changes people's deeply held concerns about vaccines," she told Reuters. Although the term "anti-vax" is sometimes associated with conspiracy theories, many people are simply concerned about side-effects or industry ethics. Globally, one person in five does not view vaccines as safe or is unsure, according to a 2018 survey by the Wellcome Trust health fund. reut.rs/2JTb27q In China, where the COVID-19 disease caused by the novel coronavirus originated, surveys by VCP researchers show safety is an important cause of concern. Several scandals eroded trust, including in 2018 when a unit of China's vaccine maker Changsheng Bio-technology Co Ltd was heavily fined for falsifying data for a rabies vaccine. The company said it was "deeply sorry" for the incident. Online discussions tracked by Reuters - including closed Facebook pages with more than 200,000 members, Twitter feeds such as the Children's Health Defense and YouTube videos totalling over 700,000 views - showed considerable mistrust that a rushed vaccine would be improperly tested. VCP director Heidi Larson said that was also the main reason for concern around the vaccine against the H1N1 swine flu pandemic in 2009. A quickly produced swine flu vaccine in 1976 led to about one in 100,000 people developing Guillain-Barre syndrome, a paralyzing immune-system disorder, according to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Some 115 coronavirus vaccine candidates are being developed by institutes and drugmakers, according to the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovation, a global alliance financing and coordinating the development of vaccines. "I will not be injected with anything, especially a fast-tracked vaccine," added American Vicki Barneck, 67, who believes a strong immune system is enough to combat the disease. Holland, of the Children's Health Defense, said: "Some react fine to vaccines, others are paralysed or killed." However, a 2015 paper by CDC epidemiologists said "multiple studies and scientific reviews have found no association between vaccination and deaths except in rare cases." The VCP is running an 18-month study tracking conversation online about the coronavirus and conducting global polls to measure attitudes towards social distancing, isolation, hand-washing and anticipating a vaccine. From analysing more than 3 million posts a day between January and mid-March 2020, director Dr Heidi Larson said the vast majority were eager for a treatment, fast. "People are hungry for a vaccine," she said. In Italy, which has been hit badly by COVID-19, the anti-vax movement has "virtually disappeared" in the discussion on the coronavirus, according to virologist Dr Roberto Burioni. For a coronavirus vaccine to be effective, wide uptake and annual vaccination is likely to be required, said George Kassianos, immunisation lead at the Royal College of General Practitioners in London. There is also the question of how to distribute fast enough to people lining up for the vaccine. "Essential workers will be the priority. Police officers, hospital workers, cleaners. Then at-risk groups," said Douglas L. Hatch, a physician specialised in pandemic preparedness working on the COVID-19 response in San Francisco. "By the time you get to the anti-vaxxers, they'll have trouble getting it even if they wanted to." (Corrects French poll data in eighth paragraph) Claim: Could the new coronavirus weaken 'anti-vaxxers'?.
[A]: An American mother-of-three is a long-time member of "anti-vaxxer" groups online: a small but vocal global community that believes vaccines are a dangerous con and refuse to immunize themselves or their children.

[Q]: Paragraph: In November 2019, the Facebook page "Weird History" shared the following meme, which claimed that a four-megaton atomic bomb remained missing near Georgia and that it might be live:Under an image of a Cold War-style bomb or missile (which was incidentally published to Wikipedia in 2008), text read:There's been a four-megaton atomic bomb lost off the coast of Georgia since 1958 and no one really knows whether or not it's active.The meme was shared a day ahead of the release of the fourth and final season ofMan in the High Castle. A streaming and expanded adaptation of the 1962 Philip K. Dick novel of the same name,Man in the High Castle portrays an alternate history of Cold War-era America in which the Allies lost World War II.In the meme, the bomb is described as a "four-megaton atomic bomb." Megatons are a unit of measurement used to express the force of hydrogen bombs; atomic bombs are typically quantified in kilotons:Thermonuclear bombs can be hundreds or even thousands of times more powerful than atomic bombs. The explosive yield of atomic bombs is measured in kilotons, each unit of which equals the explosive force of 1,000 tons of TNT. The explosive power of hydrogen bombs, by contrast, is frequently expressed in megatons, each unit of which equals the explosive force of 1,000,000 tons of TNT. Hydrogen bombs of more than 50 megatons have been detonated, but the explosive power of the weapons mounted on strategic missiles usually ranges from 100 kilotons to 1.5 megatons.To their credit, "Weird History" did include a status update along with a Facebook-formatted link:A Routine Training Mission Went Incredibly Wrong And Resulted In The Loss Of A Nuclear Weapon rnkr.co/TybeeIslandThat link pointed to an entry on the listicle-heavy site Ranker, with atitlesimilar to the text of the meme: "The US Air Force Lost A Nuclear Bomb Off The Coast Of Georgia In 1958 And They Still Haven't Found It." It claimed:At around 1 am on February 5, 1958, Major Howard Richardson was piloting a B-47 Stratojet back to Homestead Air Force Base in Florida. The Major was cruising along at 38,000 feet following what he thought was a successful top-secret training mission a simulated bombing in Virginia. Then, the situation went underwater in every sense of the word.Unbeknownst to Richardson, the simulation was to feature one more pretend attack from an F-86 Sabre jet fighter piloted by Lieutenant Clarence Stewart. That's when disaster struck. []The device is believed to have landed somewhere near Tybee Island and the incident has since come to be known as the Tybee Island mid-air collision.One source cited by Ranker was a 2009 BBC article about the collision and its aftermath:More than 50 years after a 7,600lb (3,500kg) nuclear bomb was dropped in US waters following a mid-air military collision, the question of whether the missing weapon still poses a threat remains. []Shortly after midnight on 5 February 1958, Howard Richardson was on a top-secret training flight for the US Strategic Air Command. It was the height of the Cold War and the young Major Richardson's mission was to practise long-distance flights in his B-47 bomber in case he was ordered to fly from Homestead Air Force Base in Florida to any one of the targets the US had identified in Russia.Colonel Howard Richardson We thought maybe it was something from outer space, but it could only be another plane Colonel Howard Richardson The training was to be as realistic as possible, so on board was a single massive H-bomb the nuclear weapon he might one day be instructed to drop to start World War III.As he cruised at 38,000 feet over North Carolina and Georgia, his plane was hit by another military aircraft, gouging a huge hole in the wing and knocking an engine almost off its mountings, leaving it hanging at a perilous angle Colonel Richardson told me that the decision was instantaneous and he still has no doubt it was the right thing to do.They would ditch their nuclear payload as soon as possible in order to lighten the aircraft for an emergency landing and also to eliminate the danger of an enormous explosion when they made their unsteady arrival at the nearest available runway.A May 2004 CBS articledescribed the lost munition as an "H-bomb," reporting on the area in which nuclear weapons enthusiast Derek Duke believed it sat in the waters off Savannah. Duke's decades-dormant interest in the story was reinvigorated by internet chatter in the late 1990s, and he went looking with Geiger counters and a boat:There seems to be nothing special out here. But beneath the ocean floor off Savannah, an aluminum cylinder lies entombed in silt. It's like an 11-foot-long bullet with a snub nose and four stubby fins. Written on it, its name: "No. 47782." Enclosed in its metal skin: 400 pounds of conventional explosives and a quantity of bomb-grade uranium.No. 47782 is an H-bomb.A Mark 15, Mod 0 to be exact, one of the earliest thermonuclear devices developed by the United States. This is the kind whose mushroom clouds boiled in South Pacific tests. It was designed to be 100 times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb.No. 47782 has rested off Savannah since Feb. 5, 1958.In some pieces the missing weapon was described as an atomic bomb or A-bomb, and in others, a hydrogen bomb or H-bomb. The explosive in questionwas the "first relatively light (3450 kg) thermonuclear bomb," a Mark 15, in service from 1955 to 1965.CBS went on to describe conflicting information on whether the device posed a threat in its purported "watery grave":Four months after Richardson's [1958] accident, the Atomic Energy Commission changed [a] policy, banning the use of nuclear bombs during training exercises.As Duke was learning all of this, he turned up a copy of the Atomic Energy Commission receipt Richardson had signed. Written in ink near the top of the document was the word "simulated." That, according to the Air Force, meant the bomb, containing 400 pounds of conventional explosives and an undisclosed amount of uranium, did not have a detonation capsule. Without it, there was no risk of a nuclear explosion.That was reassuring. And it might have been the end of the story if not for another document Duke soon acquired.This one was a letter, written in 1966 to the chairman of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, recounting the testimony of Assistant Defense Secretary Jack Howard before a 1966 congressional committee investigating the country's missing and lost nuclear weapons.Howard, the letter says, testified there were four complete nuclear weapons, including detonation capsules, that were missing or lost. Among them: the bomb Richardson had dropped off the coast of Georgia.Reporters also contacted Richardson, the pilot, who maintained the sunken bomb was not active, and that if it was he would have known. In October 2004, theNew York Timesreported that the United States military began its first search for the missing bomb, but maintained it was "incapable" of detonation:It is the first time the military has sought signs of the 7,600-pound hydrogen bomb in the murky waters of Wassaw Sound since a crippled B-47 bomber dumped the Mark-15 bomb into the sea near Savannah in 1958.A team of 20 experts in nuclear weapons, gamma spectroscopy and underwater salvage confined their search to an area roughly the size of a football field, marked by buoys floating on the surface The Air Force says the bomb is incapable of a nuclear explosion because it lacks the plutonium capsule needed to trigger one. Still, it contains about 400 pounds of conventional explosives and an undisclosed amount of uranium.The bomb was dropped into Wassaw Sound in February 1958 during a training flight when the bomber carrying it collided with a fighter jet.Four years later, a February 2009 NPR piece about the mystery of the missing nuke off Tybee Island began with the following clarification:Clarification: In the broadcast version of this report, NPR said that there was general agreement that the lost Savannah nuclear bomb contains significant quantities of uranium and plutonium. A 1966 Congressional document indicates that the bomb was a complete weapon containing both uranium and plutonium. But the Air Force and the former pilot of the plane, retired Col. Howard Richardson, deny the bomb contains plutonium.NPR reported that the Navy initially spent two months looking for the weapon, finally deciding that leaving it in its place was a better course of action than a recovery attempt:The Navy searched for the bomb for more than two months, but never found it, and today recommends it should remain in its resting place. In a 2001 report on the search and recovery of the bomb, the Air Force said that if the bomb is still intact, the risk associated with the spread of heavy metals is low. If [it is] left undisturbed, the explosive in the bomb poses no hazard, the report said. It went on to say that an "intact explosive would pose a serious explosion hazard to personnel and the environment if disturbed by a recovery attempt."The original meme claimed that a "four-megaton atomic bomb" was "lost off the coast of Georgia" in 1958, and that "no one really knows whether or not it's active." OnFebruary 5 1958, an F-86 collided with the B-47 carrying aMark 15 thermonuclear weapon, causing an emergency landing during which the bomb was jettisoned, landing in the waters near Tybee Island, Georgia.Initial Naval searches for it were unsuccessful, and the missing nuke remained a subject of interest for more than half a decade; as the meme indicated, some dispute still surrounds its level of risk. Documents from the Cold War regarding whether the sunken munition contained bothuranium and plutonium and whether it could be detonated contain conflicting information. Claim: Since 1958, a four-megaton atomic bomb has been missing off the coast of Georgia, and we don't know if it's active.
[A]: A Four-Megaton Atomic Bomb Was Lost off Georgia's Coast in 1958 (And No One Knows If It's Active)

[Q]: Paragraph: The story does not mention the cost of mammography (or of follow up tests and treatments) to the individual, or, collectively, to society. Based on the results of this study, 2,500 women would have to be screened every other year for a decade in order to prevent one death from breast cancer. As the story points out, during that same time 1,000 of those women would have at least one false alarm and 500 would undergo an unnecessary biopsy, thus adding to the price tag. The story reports both the 10 percent reduction in breast cancer deaths that the researchers attributed to screening, as well as the calculation that 2,500 women would have to be screened for a decade to prevent one breast cancer death. The story points out that there are many false alarms among women who are screened with mammography and that most of the cancers that are found and treated would not have been lethal. It notes calculations from an editorial accompanying the study that for every breast cancer death prevented five or more women are treated for tumors that would never have become lethal. The story accurately describes the study and highlights some of the advantages of the methods used in this study compared to earlier studies. We wish it had mentioned some of the limitations of the observational methods used. For instance, the researchers mentioned that a longer study may have found a larger benefit to screening. Nonetheless, we'll give it the benefit of the doubt on this criterion. The story does not exaggerate the threat of breast cancer and emphasizes that this study and others indicate that the effect of mammography screening is more modest than most women believe. The story includes more than one independent source. However, the story does not tell readers the sources of funding, which were the Cancer Registry of Norway and the Research Council of Norway. The story highlights experts talking about the decision about whether or not to get screening mammograms, and therefore addresses even the option of foregoing mammograms. Although the availability of mammography is not at issue in this story, it could have pointed out that the researchers attributed most of the decrease in breast cancer deaths to multidisciplinary breast cancer management teams. While all the women screened by mammography in Norway had access to these expert teams, women in the U.S. who get mammography may not have access to this sort of treatment support. In this case, the novelty of the approach is the study method. The story reports that Norway provided researchers with a unique opportunity, since mammography screening was phased in over a nine year period, thus allowing researchers to compare the outcomes of women who were screened to similar women who were not. The story includes interviews and other information that does not appear to come from a news release. Claim: New study widens debate on the value of mammograms
[A]:
This story clearly outlines how a study of mammography screening in Norway feeds into debate about the value of breast cancer screening. It includes the comments of experts who have a variety of perspectives on the latest data. Women have been whipsawed by often confusing statements and claims about whether and when to get a mammogram. This story lays out how the latest study data points to benefits of screening but that the benefits appear to be smaller than most people believe.