Well a virus isn't intelligent and doesn't need to think about purpose as it can't suffer or feel comfort. Also it isn't an organism and arguably isn't even alive. Perhaps just incomplete DNA protocol from long dead lifeforms.

If our purpose was to ask questions what purpose do those questions serve if we get no closer to answers?

It seems to me that you are suggesting that a virus has no inherent purpose.
I don't think it matters much, when it comes to inherent purpose, whether or not a virus can suffer or feel comfort. Science cannot confirm for sure that a virus is alive and does not suffer or feel comfort but I agree that it probably doesn't 'feel' at all. BUT that is not proof that it has no inherent purpose.
From YOUR perspective rather than the perspective of a virus. Do you think virus has a purpose.

Perhaps just incomplete DNA protocol from long dead lifeforms. — TiredThinker

From https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/the-origins-of-viruses-14398218/, we have:


Where Did Viruses Come From?
There is much debate among virologists about this question. Three main hypotheses have been articulated:
1. The progressive, or escape, hypothesis states that viruses arose from genetic elements that gained the ability to move between cells;
2. the regressive, or reduction, hypothesis asserts that viruses are remnants of cellular organisms; and 3. the virus-first hypothesis states that viruses predate or coevolved with their current cellular hosts.

There are other interesting small paragraphs and details in the single page of text linked to above such as: Are viruses alive?

If our purpose was to ask questions what purpose do those questions serve if we get no closer to answers? — TiredThinker

So what do measurements (even if they are subjective) such as 'progression' mean to you or a metaphor/analogy such as 'We see further as we can stand on the shoulders of giants,' mean to you?

I don't know the giants metaphor. I assume it is irrelevant if a virus has purpose as it cannot even seek one. Even its very existence doesn't matter. I guess I have to presuppose that some things are accidental therefore creating contrast with things that have purpose.

I think purpose and questions of purpose are actually part of the human mind's obsession with meaning and interpretation. Other animals with complex nervous systems (eg mammals etc) don't seem to be preoccupied with this question, although they do have limited capacity for identifying things. Humans however look at everything, not just communications, and interpret it. That results in an evaluation that is usually positive or negative. When looking a plant we see it as good or a weed, medicinal or poisonous etc. This cerebral capacity we have can turn against us when we look at our own meaning, purpose, use, value and all. I think context has a lot to do with interpretations, as the way we interpret things contemporarily is for its use or purpose and if it has none it is useless or garbage. If people were more about the aesthetic nature of things, and saw things with just purpose like cars and machinery as ugly and undesirable maybe we would look for the beauty in life instead, which is rather abundant.

Very insightful. Thanks.