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.

Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: Strong point. The story said, "There's one other thing, the CDC says. Make sure patients understand that warding off HIV isn't cheap. Each pill currently costs around $36, which adds up to more than $13,000 a year. Some insurers might pay, but some might balk" The story stated the benefits clearly albeit only in relative risk reduction terms. We would have preferred absolute numbers. But it did such a good job in telling the updated story about proper use of the drug in question that we give it a satisfactory score. Several clear points were made about harms: The story did a great job of communicating the read-between-the-lines reality of the evidence for the use of this drug. NO disease-mongering here. The story is based on the CDC's evaluation and warnings about proper use of the drug. We would have liked to have seen a clinician-researcher's perspective someone not affiliated with the CDC analysis. Not applicable. Because of the nature of this drug, no comparison is really necessary. As the story stated, "It's the first time anybody's shown that taking a pill can prevent HIV and it was the first new weapon against HIV unveiled in many years." The story is clear that Truvada is already on the market. The story stated, "It's the first time anybody's shown that taking a pill can prevent HIV and it was the first new weapon against HIV unveiled in many years." We have no evidence that the story relied on a news release. Claim: CDC To Doctors: Anti-HIV Pill No Magic Bullet Against Virus

Output: Clear, succinct, and important reporting that tones down some of the celebratory tone that greeted a drug's "landmark study" from a few months ago. The story notes that there was a lot of celebrating when news came out in November that taking a pill can reduce the risk of getting HIV. But the story delivered a clear dose of evidence and caution important journalism.

Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: More than 132,000 cases of the virus have been reported in 123 countries since it emerged in December in the central Chinese city of Wuhan, WHO director-general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus told a virtual news conference. "Europe has now become the epicenter of the pandemic with more reported cases and deaths than the rest of world combined apart from China," he said in Geneva. Tedros announced that the WHO was launching a coronavirus Solidarity Response Fund. This would to allow people and organizations to contribute to help fund masks, gloves, gowns and goggles for heath workers, as well as diagnostic kits and investment in research and development, including for vaccines. Facebook will match up to $10 million in donations, while Alphabet Inc's Google will donate $5 million, the WHO and UN Foundation later announced in a joint statement. Social distancing, where people avoid close proximity or touching, is a "tried and tested method" to slow the spread of a virus but "not a panacea" that will stop transmission, the WHO's top emergency expert Dr. Mike Ryan said. Each country must decide on its own measures to protect its population, he said, adding: "But we've also consistently said that blanket travel measures in their own right will do nothing to protect an individual state." Detection and isolation of infected people, as well as tracing their contacts and wider testing, must be part of a comprehensive strategy, Ryan said. "As part of an overall comprehensive strategy, there is a place - particularly inside national borders - for potentially restricting movement between zones, as we've seen in certain places," he said. "But there is rarely a justification for blanket bans, unless of course the context and the risk defines that." U.S. President Donald Trump has announced sweeping travel restrictions to prevent people from 26 European countries - except for Britain and Ireland - from traveling to the United States in a bid to limit the virus spread. A number of other countries in recent days have announced stepped up border checks, and canceled flights to other countries, in an effort to contain the spread. Trump on Friday declared a national emergency over the fast-spreading coronavirus, opening the door to providing what he said was about $50 billion in federal aid to fight the disease. Claim: Europe is epicenter of coronavirus pandemic: WHO.

Output: Europe has now become the epicenter of a coronavirus pandemic that has claimed 5,000 lives around the world, "a tragic milestone", the World Health Organization said on Friday.

Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: That is the warning from the Institution of Mechanical Engineers (IME), which on Wednesday became the latest group to highlight the problem of regulatory uncertainty once Britain leaves the European Union. As Reuters reported last month, industries from aerospace to pharmaceuticals and chemicals fear Brexit may create a regulatory vacuum. In a new report, the IME called on the British government to harmonize its post-Brexit rules with EU regulations on medical devices - a category covering everything from heart stents to walking aids - or risk losing billions of pounds in exports. "Leaving the EU without the UK medical technology industry suffering considerable long-term damage, particularly for small businesses, will be a huge challenge," said Helen Meese, IME's head of healthcare. "As part of the UK's Brexit deal, it is vital that the UK is able to maintain continuity with the EU CE certification processes, and enable UK manufacturers to export medical devices into the 100 billion euros European med tech market." The EU's system of CE marks offers a single validation for medical devices across the 28-nation bloc, in a similar way that the European Medicines Agency gives an EU-wide license for drugs. British firms would be excluded from this after Brexit unless there was a UK-EU deal for some kind of mutual recognition. Britain's medical technology sector has annual turnover of 17 billion pounds ($22 billion), with 3,000 firms supporting 90,000 jobs, according to the IME. Claim: Brexit regulatory uncertainty 'threatens UK med tech'.
Output: Regulatory uncertainty in the wake of Brexit could leave Britain's multi-billion-pound medical technology industry out in the cold, with separate regulatory systems threatening exports and jobs.