Given a paragraph, generate a claim that is supported by the given paragraph. 1) The claim must contain information from within the paragraph. 2) A sentence within the paragraph can be used as a claim. 3) The claim should not have contradictions within the paragraph. 4) The claim should be at most one sentence long.

Ex Input:
The disease being called "pediatric multisystem inflammatory syndrome" was identified and treated at Seattle Children's Hospital, KUOW reported. King County Public Health said the patient was a resident of Snohomish County and there have been no other confirmed cases in the area. It involves a "hyper response" of the child's immune system to the virus, according to Dr. Michael Portman, who directs pediatric cardiovascular research at Children's. It can lead to inflammation of the blood vessels, and affect the heart's arteries, leading to coronary aneurysms. In similar diseases, that can lead to lifelong heart issues, Portman said. The syndrome is rare and most children infected with the virus develop only mild illness. The disease is being linked to COVID-19, Portman said, because almost all of the patients have had confirmed cases of the virus, positive antibody tests, or known exposure. Portman said it is very similar and at times appears almost identical to a disease called "Kawasaki disease," which was identified in Japan in the 1960s. According to Portman, Kawasaki disease is fairly common at Seattle Children's. Around 30% patients at Children's with Kawasaki disease are of Asian descent, Portman said. But the disease "seems to affect Hispanic and black children more severely" due to a "more robust inflammatory response." Most of the cases of the new syndrome have been in the New York area and a handful have been fatal. Portman's advice to parents is "not to freak out," but if a child has a persistent fever, which is a symptom, he recommends getting it checked.

Ex Output:
Seattle sees 1st case of childhood disease tied to virus.

Ex Input:
The Republican governor said the state is gradually moving into stage one of the state's recovery plan at 5 p.m. Friday, after 14 days of plateauing of key hospital metrics. He also said the decision came after consultation with a state team of public health experts and business leaders. "I want to be very clear: while lifting the stay at home order and gradually moving into stage one of our recovery is a positive step forward, it does not mean that we are safe or that this crisis is over," Hogan said at a news conference. "Low risk does not mean no risk. All Marylanders, particularly those older and more vulnerable populations, are advised to continue staying home as much as possible." Retail stores may reopen at up to 50% capacity, with curbside pickup and delivery strongly encouraged and all public health precautions in place. Examples of businesses that may reopen include clothing and shoe stores, pet groomers, animal adoption shelters, car washes, art galleries and bookstores. All manufacturing may resume operations, with multiple shifts encouraged. Churches and houses of worship may start holding religious services, at up to 50% capacity, with outdoor services strongly encouraged. Some personal services, including barbershops and hair salons, may open with up to 50% capacity and by appointment only. Maryland residents are still urged to work from home if they can. A requirement that people wear masks in public areas indoors will remain in effect. Limits prohibiting gatherings of 10 or more people will remain in place, with the exception of religious gatherings. The plan provides a flexible and community-based approach that enables individual jurisdictions to make decisions on the timing of stage one reopenings. Local governments can keep restrictions in place, but they can only act within the guidelines announced by the governor. Hogan noted that officials in two of Maryland's largest jurisdictions, Montgomery and Prince George's counties in the suburbs of the nation's capital, have made clear they are not ready to move into stage one. Of the state's 34,812 confirmed cases, 10,072 are in Prince George's, and 7,283 are in Montgomery. Baltimore County has 4,160 cases, and the city of Baltimore has the fourth-highest number with 3,476. Hogan also noted that other counties in the state feel strongly that they are able to begin stage one. "As our state cautiously moves forward we fully understand that not all counties are in the same situation," Hogan said. "Just four of Maryland's 24 jurisdictions currently account for more than 70% of our state's total confirmed cases." Some counties in rural parts of the state have had far fewer cases. Foe example, Garrett County in western Maryland has had six confirmed cases. Somerset County, on Maryland's Eastern Shore, has reported 51 cases the second fewest number of confirmed cases for a Maryland jurisdiction. As of Wednesday morning, Maryland has confirmed 34,812 virus cases. That was 751 more cases than on Tuesday. Maryland also has had a total of 1,694 confirmed deaths, 51 more than on the day before. Maryland has had 138,762 negative test results. On Wednesday, 1,550 people were hospitalized in the state due to the virus. That's 13 less than on Tuesday. ___ For more AP coverage of the virus outbreak, visit https://apnews.com/VirusOutbreak or https://apnews.com/UnderstandingtheOutbreak.

Ex Output:
Maryland governor eases restrictions caused by virus.

Ex Input:
On 1 June 2018, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics announced a proposed "Significant New Use Rule" (SNUR) for asbestos, a mineral once widely used in the construction of buildings due to its flame-retardant properties but now uncontroversially considered a carcinogen. The necessity for such a rule, in general, stems from the fact that not all uses of asbestos are currently banned; some of them remain unregulated thanks to a 1991 court ruling. The asbestos uses the 2018 SNUR applies to are ones that had not been banned by earlier regulations and remained in active use at the time of the 1991 court ruling, but are no longer in use due to users' desires to avoid contracting cancer or liability for causing cancer in others. The EPA refers to these uses as "currently unregulated former uses." SNURs are a mechanism within the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) that mandate specific EPA approval when a chemical is used in a significantly new way or in a significantly new mixture that "might create concerns.": For asbestos, [the] EPA is proposing a SNUR for certain uses of asbestos (including asbestos-containing goods) that would require manufacturers and importers to receive EPA approval before starting or resuming manufacturing, and importing or processing of asbestos. This review process would provide EPA with the opportunity to evaluate the intended use of asbestos and, when necessary, take action to prohibit or limit the use. The TSCA is currently undergoing a major overhaul that began under the Obama administration and was reinterpreted in radically divergent ways under the Trump administration. When former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt (a Trump appointee who resigned amid accusations of misconduct)explained the proposed SNUR for asbestos, he described it as part of an "unprecedented" set of new protections against the dangers of asbestos which require manufacturers "to receive EPA approval before starting or resuming manufacturing, and importing or processing of asbestos". In their correspondence with us, the EPA stated that the proposed rule serves "to ensure that the manufacture, import, or processing for the currently unregulated former uses of asbestos identified in the rule are prohibited unless reviewed and approved by EPA." According to critics, the problem with this position is twofold. The first problem concerns the way in which the current EPA has written the SNUR, which EPA staffers have privately worried does not allow for the ban of all currently inactive unregulated uses but instead only concerns 15 specific uses the EPA "believes" to be comprehensive and thus could allow for the continued legality of some now dormant uses. The second problem concerns the way in which the EPA has proposed to evaluate the risk of these "currently unregulated former uses". In May 2018, the EPA published a document known as the "Problem Formulation of the Risk Evaluation for Asbestos," which establishes the scientific approach the EPA will take in evaluating these new uses. Significantly, their approach will not include information from existing (or "legacy") uses of asbestos, despite the significant body of work around health risks stemming from those uses: In the case of asbestos, legacy uses, associated disposals, and legacy disposals will be excluded from the problem formulation and risk evaluation These include asbestos containing materials that remain in older buildings or are part of older products but for which manufacture, processing and distribution in commerce are not currently intended, known or reasonably foreseen. EPA is excluding these activities because EPA generally interprets the mandates under section TSCA 6(a)-(b) to conduct risk evaluations and any corresponding risk management to focus on uses for which manufacture, processing or distribution is intended, known to be occurring, or reasonably foreseen, rather than reaching back to evaluate the risks associated with legacy uses, associated disposal, and legacy disposal, and interprets the definition of conditions of use in that context. E&E News reported that this approach may serve to severely limit the types of exposures the EPA will consider when formulating the potential risk of new uses for asbestos: Public health advocates believe EPA is inappropriately limiting its health reviews of chemicals to avoid considering the impacts of those already in the environment. But the agency hasn't been swayed by their pushback That means the agency won't consider the dangers posed by, for example, asbestos-containing tiles, adhesives and piping in millions of homes and commercial buildings nationwide. According to the New York Times, the new rules will serve to narrow the ways in which asbestos itself is defined as well: Other changes identified in the E.P.A. documents narrow the definitions of certain chemicals, including asbestos. Some asbestos-like fibers will not be included in the risk assessments, one agency staff member said, nor will the 8.8 million pounds a year of asbestos deposited in hazardous landfills or the 13.1 million pounds discarded in routine dump sites. Three former EPA officials, including the former supervisor of the toxic chemical program, told the New York Times that such stipulations would necessarily create flawed analyses of the threat posed by any chemical currently being re-evaluated by the EPA: Three former agency officials, including a former supervisor of the toxic chemical program, said that the E.P.A.'s approach would result in a flawed analysis of the threat presented by chemicals. "It is ridiculous," said Wendy Cleland-Hamnett, who retired last year after nearly four decades at the E.P.A., where she ran the toxic chemical unit during her last year. "You can't determine if there is an unreasonable risk without doing a comprehensive risk evaluation" The most likely outcome of the changes will be that the agency finds lower levels of risks associated with many chemicals, and as a result, imposes fewer new restrictions or prohibitions, several current and former agency officials said. Senator Tom Udall, a Democrat from New Mexico, argued that former EPA head Scott Pruitt was undermining a bipartisan push to reform the TSCA that began under President Obama. "Congress worked hard in bipartisan fashion to reform our nation's broken chemical safety laws, but Pruitt's E.P.A. is failing to put the new law to use as intended," he said in a statement. President Trump spoke on the topic of asbestos long before his election to the White House. In his 1997 book The Art of the Comeback, Trump argued that the chemical is actually safe once applied and suggested that the link to health problems was manufactured by mob-connected companies which perform asbestos removal: "I believe that the movement against asbestos was led by the mob, because it was often mob-related companies that would do the asbestos removal. Great pressure was put on politicians, and as usual, the politicians relented." While it is true that the uses of asbestos discussed in the 2018 SNUR are currently legal, their health and litigation risks have rendered them effectively dead. The current administration has established a process for some of those uses to be granted formal approval by the EPA if they pass a safety review many scientists find flawed. For these reasons, we concur with the leaked opinion of EPA lawyer Mark Seltzer, an attorney advisor to the EPA Chemical Risk and Reporting Enforcement Branch who worked on the SNUR and concluded that: "This new approach allows asbestos-containing products that are not currently used to be used in the future."

Ex Output:
The Environmental Protection Agency will allow new asbestos products to enter the market.