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: Researchers around the world are working to develop potential treatments or vaccines against the respiratory disease that has killed nearly 47,000 people and infected almost a million in just a few months. A team at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine in the United States said they were able to move quickly in developing a potential COVID-19 vaccine after working on other coronaviruses that cause Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) and Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS). "These two viruses, which are closely related to SARS-CoV-2 (the new coronavirus causing the COVID-19 pandemic), teach us that a particular protein, called a spike protein, is important for inducing immunity against the virus," said Andrea Gambotto, an associate professor at Pittsburgh. "We knew exactly where to fight this new virus." When tested in mice, the prototype vaccine - which the researchers have called PittCoVacc - generated what they described as "a surge of antibodies" against the new coronavirus within two weeks. The Pittsburgh researchers cautioned that because the animals have not been tracked for very long as yet, it is too early to say whether and for how long the immune response against COVID-19 lasts. But they said that in comparable tests in mice with their MERS experimental vaccine, a sufficient level of antibodies was produced to neutralize the virus for at least a year. So far, the antibody levels of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccinated animals seem to be following the same trend, they said in peer-reviewed study in the journal EBioMedicine. The team said they hope to start testing the vaccine candidate on people in clinical trials in the next few months. The potential vaccine uses a needle patch design, called a microneedle array, to increase its potential potency. This array is a fingertip-sized patch of 400 tiny needles made out of sugar and the spike protein, Gambotto explained. It is designed to deliver the spike protein pieces into the skin, where the immune reaction is strongest. Claim: Potential COVID-19 vaccine shows promise in mouse study.
[A]: Initial tests in mice of a potential COVID-19 vaccine delivered via a fingertip-sized patch have shown it can induce an immune response against the new coronavirus at levels that might prevent infection, U.S. scientists said on Thursday.

[Q]: Paragraph: The governor, who is also a pediatric neurologist, worked to comfort victims of Friday's shooting and their families, while helping coordinate the massive government response. He discussed the shooting with President Donald Trump in a private phone call, stood shoulder to shoulder with other elected officials at a news conference and pressed for tighter gun control to national audiences. The subject of widespread mockery after the racist photo from his medical school yearbook surfaced, the Democratic governor appears determined to project that he's up to the task. "Actions speak a lot louder than words. And I will have the leadership that's needed," Northam said in an interview with NPR after the shooting, while discussing potential plans to push for increased gun regulations. Police said 12 people were killed and several others injured when DeWayne Craddock, an engineer with the city's utilities department, opened fire inside a municipal building Friday afternoon. Northam quickly left Richmond after the shooting and drove to Virginia Beach, speaking to local, state and other officials on the way down to coordinate responses and share information. After a news conference Friday evening, Northam took a call from Trump to discuss the shooting, with the president offering the federal government's full support. Michael Berlucchi, a Virginia Beach City Council member, praised the governor and other officials for their work to address the shooting's aftermath from the city's emergency operations center. "Nobody carried their baggage into that room," Berlucchi said Sunday. "The only thing I saw was public servants coming together to address the worst tragedy in the history of our city." On Saturday, Northam attended a vigil at a church where he told those gathered that "God is in control." He visited a hospital to meet with survivors and thank doctors and staff. In broadcast interviews with national media, Northam stressed the need for action to prevent similar deadly shootings. "We lost 12 lives yesterday. If you look at the commonwealth of Virginia, we lost over 900 lives over the past two years to gun violence, gun-related accidents," Northam said on CNN. "So I will make decisions in the upcoming days but we need to look at our laws: are they safe, do they keep people protected in the Commonwealth of Virginia?" The governor has long been an advocate for stricter gun control. He made the issue a top priority of his 2017 gubernatorial campaign, drawing from his experience as a pediatrician and Army doctor who has treated children and soldiers wounded by firearms. But a package of bills Northam pushed this year, including legislation to limit gun magazine size and give local governments broader authority to ban guns in city buildings, went nowhere in a staunchly pro-gun Republican-controlled Virginia General Assembly. Northam hinted Saturday in media interviews that he may be considering some kind of executive action related to gun control efforts that would bypass the legislature, but his office declined to say what specific actions he may take. Any dramatic moves by the governor would face stiff resistance from his political opponents. Philip Van Cleave, president of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, said Northam doesn't have any real power to impose new gun limits and any efforts to do so would be an attempt to deflect attention away his scandal. "He'd be very happy to try and change the focus away from the blackface stuff," Van Cleave said. Northam has been battling for months to regain a sense of normalcy in office after a picture surfaced in February of man in blackface and another person wearing a Ku Klux Klan outfit on his medical school yearbook page. Northam has denied being in the picture, and investigators recently said they can't conclusively establish the identities of either person in the 35-year-old photo. The governor withstood widespread pressure for him to resign, which weakened after scandal soon enveloped his potential successors . Two women publicly accused Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax of sexual assault, which he denies, and Attorney General Mark Herring announced he'd also worn blackface in college, just days after calling on Northam to resign. Both Fairfax and Herring have also resisted calls to resign. Fairfax was also in Virginia Beach after the shooting. He attended a church service Sunday where and pledged to take "serious action" to prevent future mass shootings. "I think that thoughts and prayers from politicians are not enough," Fairfax said. "We've had too many thoughts and prayers over the years and we've not acted in the ways to prevent these mass shootings in the future." ___ This story has been corrected to say pediatrician, not pedestrian. ___ Contributors include Associated Press writer Ben Finley. Claim: Shooting poses Virginia governor's first test since scandal.
[A]: Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam wasted little time getting to Virginia Beach after a gunman killed a dozen people in a city office building, the first major test of his leadership since a blackface scandal almost forced him from office four months ago.

[Q]: Paragraph: "The company behind the product undoubtedly has done market research abouthow much of this product it might sell and at what price. At a minimum, that information should have been included here. It presents the benefits in both relative and absolute terms in the second paragraph of the story. It would be nice to have a NNT or number needed to treat in here. It also would be nice to see the range of performance after using the drug. Did some of the men on placebo have gains in ejaculation time that were unusually high? Did some on the drug have no gain or even a loss of time? It's also not clear how the researchers knew what the ""no drug"" ejaculation time was, how they were chosen for the research or whether they fell into a particular age bracket. The story did a ""satisfactory"" job quantifying the benefits, not a perfect job. And in an imperfect world of health stories, this part of the story was actually above average. It talks about the potential side effects, but it limits that discussion to what the study found in a very small group of men. Are there long term effects from lidocaine exposure that have been found in other studies? Does the body build up resistance to lidocaine? This isn't a short term problem that can be solved with a few weeks of therapy. It isusually alife long problem, and the story should be framed that way both in discussing the benefits and the harms. By using an outside expert to say in the third graph that the findings are ""clinically significant,"" the story makes it sound as if the case for this drug has already been made. Perhaps Tom Lue gave some context around this comment, but that context is not included. Instead, we are told thatpatients will be ""muchhappier."" If you have this problem, you are looking up the company's website to get on their mailing list. But both groups experienced a gain in ejaculation time. Why would that be? And, given that these sexual encounters were self timed, how confident can we be in the results? Another thing that the story never addresses is the idea of optimal time for sex. It also treats this particular sexual dysfunction as a purelysingle male problem instead of a larger issue of an unsatisfying sexual relationship between a man and his partner. The drug was tested with two people having sex, but the person who did not receive the spray is never taken into account. The men ""rated their sexual experiences significantly higher"" than those who got placebos. The only reference to the partners is literally the second to the last sentence, ""Also, 0.6% of the men's female partners reported at least some loss of sensation."" We don't hear anything about the limitations of the study design. It appears to be a quasi-synthesis of 2 clinical trials. There isn't any caution about the limited or nonexistent peer-review which takes place for an ""abstract"" at a meeting. Regarding study design, all we know is that researchers took 2 previous trials already made public (would have been helpful to include what the primary findings were) and ""combined them with added new data."" This study design is highly suspect. We do not know anything about whether the 2 trials were similar enough to combine, and in what manner they were combined. The section describing premature ejaculation does a better than average job attempting to define the scope of the problem while describing the limitations of the research that has been done in this area. One line could be a model for other journalists to learn from: ""Surveys have suggested that as many as 20% to 30% of men may suffer from premature ejaculation, though these figures are often drawn from broadly worded survey questions and may overstate the number of men with significant problems."" The reporter clearly read a lot about the problem and the potential treatments and does a fairly good job synthesizing this information. The story makes it clear that the two outside sources were not involved in this research. It is unclear whether these doctors are involved in any competing research or research into a similar product. There are three full graphs in a 12 graph story about the standard treatments and off-label treatments. I felt like I knew more about the state of premature ejaculation medicine after reading this story than I did about the actual success of these two trials. The story makes it clear, even in the headline, that these are the results of a trial and that there currently is no product even in the FDA pipeline. It also talks about a drug therapy from Johnson &Johnson and where it is being sold. It says at one point in the story that the ""findings of both trials had previously been made public."" It would have been nice to know where, how and why. Presumably at previous conferences, and, if so, why is this treatment not already in the FDApipeline. Reporters should always be wary of scientists, especially corporate ones, who are using the trade show circuit to build momentum for their product instead of following a rigorous peer review process. This story really is all about the novelty, and it does a good job of exploring some of the other treatments available. Clearly, there is no published study. The company involved in the drug did issue this press release (http://www.renalandurologynews.com/novel-treatment-for-premature-ejaculation-shows-promising-results/article/171435/)There are some differences between the numbers used in the story and the numbers in the press release, but it's not clear how much of this is because of different caveats. (The number of men who actually completed the study, for example, versus all of those who were involved.) The story goes well beyond the release and was finished before the press conference at the AUA meeting." Claim: Trial Help for Sex Problems
[A]:
The one thing we didn't like in the story was letting the independent urologist get away with his claim that the findings were "clinically significant." We liked the way one observer put it in an online comment posted after the WSJ online story: "I had to chuckle when reading about the "clinically significant" 5.5-fold increase. Although the men rated their experience significantly higher on measures of control and satisfaction, was this 5.5 increase from about 56 seconds to 3 mins.18 seconds sufficient to make their experience as a couple more meaningful and rewarding? Did the partners rate their experiences as improved? I would characterize this finding as "less than perfect" just as the urologist quoted referred to the alternative treatments. Perhaps the study can be improved by combining spray plus sex therapy for one experimental group, spray treatment alone for another group, and sex therapy alone for the third group. I also think that giving the couples a stop watch injects an artificial component that is likely to have its own sent of negative ramifications." Sexual dysfunctions can be serious and life altering, and there is a steady parade of therapies being offered both through the standard scientific process and through outright hucksterism. It is important for reporters not to be blinded by the glare of sex therapy and to focus on the details the way they would with any other drug or treatment.