> Is this how people typically write a paper to Medical Virology?

I wont assume that (I am software engg.)

I see where you are coming from. Here is my perspective, think of this like a outage of your service. No one has exact answers so team starts to dive in and starts sharing what they find.

These findings mostly prune the "solution space" of the problem.

I love that phrase: "...prune the 'solution space' of the problem."

Feels like a new weapon was added to my cognitive toolkit.

You actually see that a lot in scientific papers if the authors are trying to propose something that they have limited data on.

What goes wrong is articles are picked up by mass media and they drop the "may", "possible".

> Is this how people typically write a paper to Medical Virology?

As with the other person, I'm not in the field so I can't actually answer.

My prior, though, would be that papers that come in the early period of a response to a global widespread disease are not representative of the typical status quo in the field.

Recently I started listening twiv.tv podcast and that's how they talk. For instance, they said there are many videos in social media of people dropping unconscious to the floor, but the virologists said not to trust those videos because "it's social media". I stopped listening to their podcast. These people don't reason unless they are shown a peer reviewed paper saying people drop unconscious. I mean, how likely is it that those videos are being faked?

> how likely is it that those videos are being faked?

I see it's your first day on the internet. Welcome!