> Why was all of this nonsense even necessary? As if the article writer just had to wedge in a completely forced narrative about COIVD apocalypse terror for the

> Why was all of this nonsense even necessary? As if the article writer just had to wedge in a completely forced narrative about COIVD apocalypse terror for the hell of it. It's very obvious the writer is just acknowledging the odd circumstances of the meeting with Stephenson. This isn't Reuters -- the writer is setting the scene for the reader and adding personal perspective. He doesn't dwell on the topic. Your response about Covid is ironically exactly what you're accusing the author of, an off-topic narrative wedged into a discussion about something else.