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 Input:
Paragraph: In July 2020, readers asked us about news articles claiming that a couple in Radcliff, Kentucky, had been placed under house arrest for refusing to sign an agreement to self-isolate and quarantine, after one of them tested positive for COVID-19. Elizabeth Linscott told WAVE 3 News that, although she had no symptoms, she got tested for COVID-19 as a precaution before a planned visit to her parents in Michigan in July. According to Linscott, after she tested positive the "health department" sent her a document for her signature, in which she was asked to "agree to comply to call the health department prior to leaving my house for any reason." Linscott told WAVE 3 that she refused to sign the document because of a provision that she said required her to notify public health officials in advance of traveling to the hospital for care, but that she was not refusing to self-isolate in principle, adding "I have to go to the ER, if I have to go to the hospital, I'm not going to wait to get the approval to go." Linscott's husband Isaiah said that a few days after his wife refused to sign the agreement, officers from the Hardin County's Sheriff's Department and a public health official visited the family's home and produced three written orders, for the couple and their daughter, effectively forcing each of them to quarantine at home. WAVE 3 reported that the Linscotts were "ordered to wear ankle monitors." The family's story was covered by national news outlets including The Associated Press, Fox News, and the New York Post. In response to our inquiries, the Hardin County Sheriff's Office confirmed, without naming the Linscotts, that on July 16 its officers had "delivered Notices and Orders to Isolate and Quarantine," as a result of a court order. In response to our inquiries about the Linscott case, the Hardin County District Court provided Snopes with a copy of the three isolation orders that the Sheriff's department served upon the Linscott family. The isolation orders, dated July 16 and signed by Hardin Circuit Court Judge Ken Howard, specify that each of the Linscotts were ordered to isolate at home for 14 days, by virtue of a petition from the Lincoln Trail District Health Department, which covers several counties including Hardin County. That petition outlined the following: The "Self-Isolation and Controlled Movement Agreed Order" asks the recipient to agree to several provisions, including: "As long as I do not require hospitalization, I will self-isolate at home, reducing contact with all others as much as is practicable" as well as "I will not leave my house without the approval of the Department for Public Health" and "I will not travel by any public, commercial or healthcare conveyance such as ambulance, bus, taxiwithout the prior approval of the Department for Public Health." On July 15, the district health department filed its petition with Hardin Circuit Court, and the following day Judge Howard issued an injunction ordering the Linscotts to comply with the provisions of the order. The ruling was based in part on the "nature of the disease," as well as Linscott's positive diagnosis, of course, but Howard also specified that his decision to grant the isolation order was also partially based on Linscott's "conduct," noting that she had "declined to voluntarily agree to isolate and has conveyed that she will leave her home to get supplies and do errands which she considers necessary." Howard also ordered the couple to wear ankle monitors, to be installed by a company called Envivo Health, and ordered the district health department to pay for the monitors and ensure the family has "adequate provisions of food, medicine or other necessities during the period of confinement." The isolation order issued by the district health department, and the injunction signed by Howard, were both based on Kentucky state law. Specifically, Chapter 212, Section 245(6) of the Kentucky Revised Statutes states that: "County, city-county, and district health departments may: [] Issue written orders directed to the owner or occupant of any property, or to any person, firm, or corporation whatever, commanding, within the time and manner specified in the order, compliance with applicable public health laws of this state and all regulations of the Cabinet for Health and Family Services or the county board of health. Notwithstanding the provisions of this section andKRS 212.210, any health officer may institute and maintain mandatory or prohibitory injunction proceedings in the appropriate Circuit Courts of this state to abate nuisances that are or may be a menace to the health of the people of the state or community, and to compel compliance with the public health laws of this state and the rules and regulations of the Cabinet for Health and Family Services and the county board of health and the orders described in this section or inKRS 212.210." Title 902, Chapter 2, Section 50 of the Kentucky Administrative Regulations further states that: "Whenever any person has been implicated as a possible reservoir or possible source of infection of any communicable disease, the local health department or the Cabinet for Human Resources shall employ such measures as are necessary to secure adequate isolation, restriction of employment or other control procedures that may be necessary to insure cessation of transmission of infection." Based on the evidence provided to Snopes by the Hardin County Sheriff's Office and Hardin Circuit Court, it's true that the Linscotts were indeed ordered to remain confined to their home for 14 days, after Elizabeth Linscott contracted COVID-19 and subsequently refused to sign a "Self-Isolation and Controlled Movement Agreed Order." Hardin Circuit Court did indeed order the couple to be fitted with ankle monitors to ensure their compliance, and the isolation order papers were given to Isaiah Linscott during a visit from the Hardin County Sheriff's Office. Most of the basic facts of the case were therefore accurately reported in the news articles mentioned above. Claim: A Kentucky couple were placed under house arrest in July 2020 after a woman diagnosed with COVID-19 refused to agree to self-isolate because it would require her to get prior approval to go to the hospital.

Ex Output:
"What's true: Elizabeth Linscott and her family were ordered to remain confined to their home for 14 days after she tested positive for COVID-19 and refused to sign a ""Self-Isolation and Controlled Movement Agreed Order."" The couple were ordered to wear ankle monitors. What's false: In an interview, Linscott claimed she objected only to a provision in the isolation order that she believed would prevent her from going to the hospital without prior approval. However, in her earlier written response to the isolation order, Linscott never mentioned going to the hospital, and instead objected on broader, principled grounds, writing ""There is no pandemic"" and ""It's my right and freedoms [sic] to go where I please."""

Ex Input:
Paragraph: Costs are mentioned reasonablyearly in the story, and with specificity. This was goodto see. Benefits of these tests are touted, but not quantified. An officer of the National Ovarian Cancer Research Fund Alliance, an advocacy group, testifies that the outcomes of women who have surgery from a gynecologic oncologist"are much better." But we don't knowwhat that means. Is it longer survival? Later the story explainsthat combining the two blood tests with assessment by a clinician "better determined the patients who should be referred to a [gynecological oncologist], identifying well over 90 percent of the women who actually had cancer." (Note that this statistic reflects only referral to a gyn-onc, not patient survival.) But how does that compare to thestandard assessment tools? A 2016 study describedas publication "of the first clinical utility data" demonstrating that use of OVA1 resulted in referral of ovarian patients to gynecologic oncologists offers similar outcomes but is not mentioned in the story. We're told thatexperts fear that these tests could lead to unnecessary surgery or delayed diagnosis, and that's sufficient for a Satisfactory rating. The story could have delved into a bit more of the specifics: What is the evidencefor these concerns? What are the false positive and false negative rates? These details areusefulbecause the point of the story is that clinicians are not using these tests to try to improve outcomes of ovarian cancer patients. Are the possible debitsoruncertainties driven by lack of clinical datacontributing to these decisions? There isn't sufficient information on the evidence behindthese tests. The FDA has approved ROMA and OVA1 for use, but the studies that led to that decision are not discussed. Nor is there sufficient discussion of why the physician groups that write guidelines haven't endorsed the tests. Their concerns are raised, but the evidence is not presented or analyzed. A late diagnosis of ovarian cancer is way too common, and the outcome is grim. At the same time, the anecdotes seem to highlight the sad aspect of the disease without necessarily providing a relevant case in which the tests described would have helped (any more than a basic blood test would have). The companies responsible for developing and marketing these two tests are front and center in this story, with scientists affiliated with the companies clearly identified. At least two sources in the storyone of them a scientist affiliated with the National Comprehensive Cancer Networkappear to be independent of the companies. The story makes it clear that no effective early detection screening test exists. Existing strategiesthe CA125 blood test and vaginal ultrasoundare mentioned and then discounted, in part via a personal narrative of a young woman who received a late diagnosis of cancer. While data-driven specifics aren't included on why standard methods aren't sufficient, this is enough to rate Satisfactory. Adirect comparison ofsurvival stemming from existing diagnostic tests relative to survival stemming from ROMA and OVA1 would have strengthened the story. If those numbers aren't available, that should have been pointed out. The story makes it clear that the two blood tests have been available since 2009. The storymentions that the tests are combinations of existing tests with a "proprietary" formula (essentially a risk prediction tool) to translate the results to likelihood of cancer. But, the article should havetalked about whether the tests, other than CA-125, have been used before. This appears to be an enterprise story, and does not rely on a news release. Claim: Ovarian cancer blood tests: Available, not widely used

Ex Output:
This is a story about the apparent underuse of two blood testsROMA and OVA1that are FDA approved to help clinicians decide whether surgery toinvestigateabnormal growthsshould be performed by a gynecologic oncologist ("gyn-onc") trained to remove malignant ovarian cancer, rather than an obstetrician-gynecologist or a general surgeon. The gist of the story is that the tests have not been widely adopted in the ensuing years, "largely because they haven't been recommended by the physician groups that write the care guidelines." The story hit on a lot of important notesit told readers the cost of these tests, and it included comments from independent sources. What is not clear is the extent to which clinical evidence supports the increased use of the two tests. We're told they accurately picked up about 90 percent of cancer cases. But we're not told how that compares to standard methods of detection. As the story notes, surviving ovarian cancer is an uphill battleit is often a deadly disease caught too late. Any procedure that increases the probability of survival is worth careful consideration.

Ex Input:
Paragraph: A total of 155 tests were conducted by two different third-party labs using four different testing methods on samples from the same bottle tested by the FDA's contracted lab, the company said. The tests are the latest effort by J&J to prove the safety of its widely used consumer product after the test by the FDA prompted J&J to undertake a nationwide recall of one lot of Johnson's Baby Powder in October. The FDA was not immediately available for comment. However, in response to an October announcement from J&J that a smaller number of independent tests also found no asbestos, the regulatory agency said it stood by its findings. The different test outcomes could have resulted from the fact that contaminants are not uniformly dispersed throughout talc and there is no standard test for asbestos in talc, FDA officials told Reuters in October. Tests conducted by the third-party labs showed asbestos was not present in the single bottle that the FDA's contracted lab had tested, nor was it present in retained samples of the finished lot from which the bottle was produced, the company said on Tuesday. The company said its investigation concluded that the most probable root causes for the FDA's reported results were either test sample contamination or analyst error at the lab, or both. In October, J&J recalled around 33,000 bottles of baby powder in the United States after the FDA said it had found trace amounts of asbestos in samples taken from a bottle purchased online. The voluntary recall was limited to one lot of Johnson's Baby Powder produced and shipped in the United States in 2018, the company said at the time. That move marked the first time the company recalled its baby powder for possible asbestos contamination, and the first time U.S. regulators have announced a finding of asbestos in the product. Asbestos is a known carcinogen that has been linked to deadly mesothelioma. The recall was the latest blow to the more than 130-year-old U.S. healthcare conglomerate that is facing thousands of lawsuits over a variety of products, including baby powder, opioids, medical devices and the antipsychotic Risperdal. J&J faces more than 15,000 lawsuits from consumers claiming its talc products, including Johnson's Baby Powder, caused their cancer. Claim: Johnson & Johnson says new tests show no asbestos in Johnson's Baby Powder.

Ex Output:
Johnson & Johnson said on Tuesday that recent tests showed that Johnson's Baby Powder was free of asbestos, after U.S. Food and Drug Administration investigations reported trace amounts of the material in the product earlier this year.