3 ms·
I hate to say this but after reading the whole article I feel I like I wasted my time. The article is way too long and reads more like a novel than an informati
by snicksnak 6y ago
I hate to say this but after reading the whole article I feel I like I wasted my time. The article is way too long and reads more like a novel than an informative piece. Unfortunately, the article does not contain any new or interesting revelations or insights, nor does it go into more depth on individual aspects that its title might promise.
Its conclusion can probably summarized as "We don't really know yet, probably population, health standards and living conditions, government policy and communication, maybe T-Cells, definitely poor data".
- onorton 6y ago> The article is way too long and reads more like a novel than an informative piece That is what is expected from the New Yorker
- snicksnak 6y agoI know that's the New Yorker's style, it's just not my cup of tee. My comment is completely subjective and my personal opinion, I only read it because I thought the title was interesting and I expected the question to be addressed with some new insights.
- ralfd 6y agoI read your comment first and then checked if the submission was from the NewYorker.com domain ...
- arkitaip 6y agoYou can't really expect anything more insightful at this time, especially from a pop science article. It will likely take years, if not decades, before we truly understand covid-19 in-depth.
- taeric 6y agoIt would be nice to see an enumeration of the currently running hypothesises.
- captain_price7 6y ago> the article does not contain any new or interesting revelations or insights, I don't know what exactly you mean by "new", but remember it's not published in a scientific journal. It isn't supposed to contain anything fully original. For us common folk- I think there were lots of new & interesting stuff there.
- mynegation 6y agoOne takeaway for me was the possible importance of how prevalent is the congregate senior living in rich countries. Although it seems to me the most probable is still plain old gaps in testing and reporting.
- crmd 6y agoIt’s a story that doesn’t go anywhere. I like the New Yorker but this writing isn’t up to their usual standards IMO.
- prof-dr-ir 6y agoI am really sorry but I think it is almost factually incorrect to say that the article does not contain new insights. Unfortunately I also cannot parse your sentence that "does it go into more depth on individual aspects that its title might promise" in a way that rhymes with what I just read - maybe you can elaborate? The article is about the ways scientists are attacking an intriguing scientific question with enormous societal importance. It certainly does not have the answer to the question in the title, and if you kept reading while expecting one then maybe you missed the phrase "the greatest conundrum of the pandemic" in the introduction? Altogether your comment, and the support it gets here, make me despair a bit for the popularization of science in general. Is such a well-written report on the scientific process itself dismissed so easily? Do we really only care about the answers?