You will be shown a claim related to the COVID-19 pandemic, and the abstract of a biomedical research paper. Each sentence from the abstract will be on a separate line. Your task is to return a JSON object with two fields:

- "verdict": The fact-checking verdict. If the information in the abstract supports the claim, write "SUPPORT". If the abstract contradicts the claim, write "CONTRADICT".
- "evidence": An array of sentences providing evidence for the verdict. Please copy all relevant sentences verbatim from the abstract.

For instance, if the model were given the claim "the COVID vaccine is safe for healthy adults", the output might be
{
  "verdict": "SUPPORT",
  "evidence": ["Our findings indicate that the risks of severe COVID vaccine side effects are low for healthy adults."]
}

Claim: High prevalence of sars-cov-2 antibodies in care homes affected by covid-19 ; a prospective cohort study in england

Abstract:
Background: We investigated six London care homes experiencing a COVID-19 outbreak and found very high rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection among residents and staff.
Here we report follow-up serological analysis in these care homes five weeks later.
Methods: Residents and staff had a convalescent blood sample for SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels and neutralising antibodies by SARS-COV-2 RT-PCR five weeks after the primary COVID-19 outbreak investigation.
Results: Of the 518 residents and staff in the initial investigation, 208/241 (86.3%) surviving residents and 186/254 (73.2%) staff underwent serological testing.
Almost all SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR positive residents and staff were antibody positive five weeks later, whether symptomatic (residents 35/35, 100%; staff, 22/22, 100%) or asymptomatic (residents 32/33, 97.0%; staff 21/22, 95.1%).
Symptomatic but SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR negative residents and staff also had high seropositivity rates (residents 23/27, 85.2%; staff 18/21, 85.7%), as did asymptomatic RT-PCR negative individuals (residents 62/92, 67.3%; staff 95/143, 66.4%).
Neutralising antibody was present in 118/132 (89.4%) seropositive individuals and was not associated with age or symptoms.
Ten residents (10/108, 9.3%) remained RT-PCR positive, but with lower RT-PCR cycle threshold values; all 7 tested were seropositive.
New infections were detected in three residents and one staff member.
Conclusions: RT-PCR testing for SARS-CoV-2 significantly underestimates the true extent of an outbreak in institutional settings.
Elderly frail residents and younger healthier staff were equally able to mount robust and neutralizing antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2.
More than two-thirds of residents and staff members had detectable antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 irrespective of their nasal swab RT-PCR positivity or symptoms status.
{"verdict": "SUPPORT", "evidence": ["Methods: Residents and staff had a convalescent blood sample for SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels and neutralising antibodies by SARS-COV-2 RT-PCR five weeks after the primary COVID-19 outbreak investigation.", "Conclusions: RT-PCR testing for SARS-CoV-2 significantly underestimates the true extent of an outbreak in institutional settings.", "More than two-thirds of residents and staff members had detectable antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 irrespective of their nasal swab RT-PCR positivity or symptoms status."]}