I 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 sen

I 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?