When you post an article, what sort of discussion are you hoping people will hold? If you are hoping that people will discuss the novel aspects of the coronavi

When you post an article, what sort of discussion are you hoping people will hold? If you are hoping that people will discuss the novel aspects of the coronavirus's impact on the immune system then you might choose an article that focuses on that. Instead, if you choose an article that spends a large amount of time discussing tangential points, creating lengthy analogies for the workings of the immune system and discussing other forms of immune response then probably you are hoping people will discuss those too. But people will appreciate as well as criticise. That there are people who appreciate the analogies are apparent in the discussion here where people do just that. That there are people who would prefer a focused article and find that the tangents detract from the underlying store is just the flip side of that discussion that the op decided to have. I personally wish that long form journalist articles would have an outline at the beginning so that I know what I am about to read. Otherwise it often just feels like the author is rambling and going nowhere. Some stories actually have a lot of moving parts and require long form journalism to paint a realistic and balanced picture. Instead, a lot of "long form" journalism just adds filler analogies and tangential factoids that may be interesting but often don't add anything to the underlying story or are unnecessary for understanding.