Given the task definition, example input & output, solve the new input case.
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.
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
Output: 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.
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.

New input case for you: Paragraph: The Federal Research Institute for Animal Health said scientists examined brain samples from 56 people who died in Bavaria between 1999 and 2019. They found evidence of Borna disease virus in eight samples. Along with six previously known cases since the mid-1990s, this brings to 14 the number of encephalitis deaths in Bavaria linked to the Borna virus over that period. The study published in the latest issue of medical journal The Lancet Infectious Diseases was conducted together with researchers from four German universities and Germany's Bernhard Nocht Institute for Tropical Medicine. Borna disease virus 1, or BoDV-1, is normally found in horses, sheep and other mammals. It was first identified as the cause of severe human encephalitis in 2018. The virus is harbored by the bicolored white-toothed shrew and researchers suspect that infections are caused by contact with the animal's excrement. While natural human-to-human transmission has been ruled out, some cases resulted from organ transplants. Symptoms of encephalitis include fever, severe headaches, speech and gait disorders that can lead to coma within days or a few weeks. The researchers noted that while BoDV-1 has a very high death rate, "the absolute number of infections and hence the risk of infection is estimated to be very low." They said the main risk areas in Germany are the states of Bavaria, Thuringia, Saxony-Anhalt and parts of neighboring adjoining states. Germany will require compulsory notification of BoDV-1 infections from March. Claim: Germany: Rare virus linked to more fatal encephalitis cases.
Output:
A review of fatal encephalitis cases in the southern German state of Bavaria has found that more than twice as many as previously known were tied to a rare animal-borne virus, researchers said Wednesday.