Given a paragraph and a claim, classify it this way: If the claim contradicts the evidence present in the paragraph, classify the claim as '0'. If the claim has multiple supporting *AND* contradicting evidences, classify the claim as '1'. If the claim has supporting evidence and the paragraph is in overall favor of the claim, then classify the claim as '2'.
--------
Question: Paragraph: Antibody tests show whether whether people have been infected with the novel coronavirus and developed immunity - potentially allowing them to return to their places of work. The British government has provisionally ordered 17.5 million of them, but health minister Matt Hancock has said some of those already being trialled work poorly, and that one test even missed three out of four cases. Brigette Bard, chief executive of the diagnostics firm BioSure, said that her firm's at-home test could not get as far as a formal trial as she had received no details of the approval criteria. "How they fail tests when there is no specification, I literally have no idea. We have been begging to be told what to do. We have a test ready to submit," she said. "We need to get our test approved, and they're not giving us an option of how to get it approved." BioSure has been producing an at-home HIV test since 2015, and Bard met Prime Minister Boris Johnson in March to discuss her COVID-19 test. At-home tests, in this case of blood obtained by pricking a finger, are designed to be read by the person taking the test, whereas others need results to be read in a lab. Bard said laboratory trials were producing good data, but that the firm needed to know what size and scope of trial and what accuracy level would be accepted by regulators. Doris-Ann Williams, chief executive of the British In Vitro Diagnostic Association, said that clarity would be coming soon. "There will be specifications released for tests this week by MHRA (the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency) which will help companies understand the technical performance expected for their kits," she said in an email. The MHRA itself said it was developing the specifications but declined to give a timeline. Once criteria were established, Bard said the trials would take one or two weeks, and then BioSure could begin production, subject to approval, with the aim of making 1 million tests a month. "If our test fails the validation, then it's not fit to go to market," she said. "I'm happy to go through whatever validation they want us to go through." Claim: Britain to reveal trial criteria for coronavirus antibody tests.

Answer: 2

Question: Paragraph: "CNN's Jake Tapper noted that a backlash against vaccines was blamed for a measles outbreak in California. Meanwhile, Donald Trump has linked childhood vaccines to autism despite the medical community debunking that myth. During the second GOP debate, Tapper asked Ben Carson, a retired pediatric neurosurgeon who now lives in West Palm Beach, if Trump should stop making such a claim. Carson said Trump should look at the evidence, noting that there is ""extremely well-documented proof that there's no autism associated with vaccinations."" Carson then turned the subject to the scheduling of vaccines: ""But it is true that we are probably giving way too many in too short a period of time. And a lot of pediatricians now recognize that, and I think are cutting down on the number and the proximity in which those are done, and I think that's appropriate."" Are pediatricians cutting down on the number and proximity of vaccines? As for Trump's claim about autism, as PolitiFact has noted before, decades of epidemiological research have demonstrated autism rates do not increase when vaccines are introduced to a population. We contacted Carson's campaign to ask for his evidence and did not get a reply. Vaccines Doctors follow a childhood vaccination schedule prepared by the U.S. Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. Children may receive as many as 24 immunizations by their second birthday and may receive up to five injections during a single doctor's visit, according to a 2013 paper by The Institute of Medicines of the National Academies. That vaccine schedule is also supported by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Centers for Disease Control. More than 90 percent of children entering kindergarten have been immunized with recommended vaccines in accordance with this schedule. But some parents have sought to delay vaccines or reduce the number given per visit, while others have rejected them entirely, despite recommendations by the scientific community. That's not a good idea, according to the report. ""Delaying or declining vaccination has led to outbreaks of such vaccine-preventable diseases as measles and whooping cough that may jeopardize public health, particularly for people who are under-immunized or who were never immunized,"" wrote researchers. The researchers also concluded that there is ""no evidence that the schedule is unsafe."" The American Academy of Pediatrics issued a press release in 2013 stating that it agreed with the paper's conclusion. After the Republican debate, it issued a newstatement in support of vaccines: ""Claims that vaccines are linked to autism, or are unsafe when administered according to the recommended schedule, have been disproven by a robust body of medical literature. It is dangerous to public health to suggest otherwise,"" wroteKaren Remley, executive director of the academy. Despite the scientific consensus, pediatricians are facing pressure from parents to delay vaccines. A survey of 534 pediatricians done for the American Academy of Pediatricians in 2012 showed that 93 percent reported that within a typical month some parents asked to spread out the vaccinations. The vast majority thought these parents were putting their children at risk for disease but thought they would build trust with the families if they agreed to the request. While there is anecdotal evidence that some pediatricians have acquiesced to parents' requests to delay vaccinations, that decision is not rooted in public health or science. ""There is no evidence that pediatricians 'recognize'that we give too many vaccines in too short a time,"" said Mark Schleiss, division director of pediatric infectious diseases at University of Minnesota. ""Far from it. ... There is no evidence at all that spacing vaccines out or changing the schedule would improve health or help children."" Eugene R. Hershorin, chief of the division of general pediatrics at the University of Miami, pointed to what happened a decade ago when England and Japan delayed the DTaP vaccine, a combination vaccine used to prevent diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis. ""There was a tremendous increase in the incidence of pertussis in both countries, leading them to re-institute the schedule immediately,"" he said. Our ruling Carson said pediatricians have cut down on the number and proximity of vaccines because they recognize there have been ""too many in too short a period of time."" Leading medical organizations have concluded that the scheduling of vaccines -- including multiple ones at once -- is safe. While there is evidence that some parents ask pediatricians to delay vaccines, that's a decision based on parents' wishes and isn't based on scientific evidence. There is no evidence that pediatricians are cutting down the number and proximity of vaccines based on any conclusion by them that there have been too many in too short a period of time. Carson has provided no evidence to support his claim." Claim: "Pediatricians have cut down on the number and proximity of vaccines because they recognize there have been ""too many in too short a period of time."

Answer: 0

Question: Paragraph: Cost is particularly important when many patients may have to pay out of pocket for weight loss drugs. Thestory doesnot provide any information about thecost of orlistat, thecost of the foodin thestudy diets, or the cost of the counseling provided to study participants. A quotation from one of the study researchers suggeststhata low-carb diet might be acheaper alternative to a low-fat diet plus medication. While this is certainlypossible, it also seems possible that low-carb eating,with its emphasis on protein frommeat,would be more expensive than low-fat eating, and that this would cancel out any savings on medication. In any case,making any kind of judgment in this area would requiremore hard data, butthe story provides only speculation. The story earns points for noting the absolute reduction in blood pressure in each group. We wish, though, that it had provided the weight loss in similar terms of actualpounds or kilograms lost instead of as a percentage of bodyweight. Similar to the HealthDay piece, the story provides no information about the potential adverse effects of orlistat or a low-carbohydrate diet. Similar to the HealthDay piece,the story gives a decent overview ofthe basic study design and outcomes. However more information would have helped us judgehow well these diet plans might work in the real world. There isno information on who dropped out of the study or how well the two groups were able to adhere to the diet. In addition, the story states that low-carb dieters were advised to consume 20 g of carbohydrate per day, but itseems very unlikely that participants were able to maintain that level of carbohydrate restriction for almost a year. Overall, this story squeaks by with a satisfactory. The story does not exaggerate the prevalence or consequences of obesity. The story's only quotes come from Dr. Yancy, a researcher affiliated with the study. The story also does not informreaders that Dr. Yancy and another co-author on the study have received funding from the Robert C. Atkins Foundation, which promotesresearch on low-carb diets. Given the story's focus on blood pressure, itshould have mentioned how the results of this study might compare to treatment with blood pressure medication. Thestory mentioned thatorlistat, the weight loss medication tested in the study,is the active ingredient in Xenical andAlli. Unlike the competing piece in HealthDay, however, it did not specify that Xenical is a prescription drug and that Alli is available over the counter. Although this information would have been helpful, providing the trade names for both drugs is probably enough to orient most readers. The story mentions that both low-carb and low-fat diets are proven to produce weight loss. However, it suggests that we should be surprised that a low-carbohydrate diet could produce such beneficial effects on blood pressure. In fact, this effect was well-documented in another comparisonof weight loss dietspublished in JAMA in 2007. The story lifts two quotes directly from a news release put out by Duke University. While the story admits thatthe quotescame froma release,it doesn'tperformthe basic task of finding another source to provide an alternateviewpoint. The reader is left wondering if this is journalism or simply an extension of the Duke University press office. Claim: Low-Carb Diet Lowers Blood Pressure

Answer:
0