Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Time for repeat showing of the free speech debate we’ve already had a dozen times, whoopee!

As ever, IMO, the problem isn’t the hosting or the banning, it’s the algorithms. I don’t care whether YouTube hosts anti-vaccine activists, I care that they actively promote anti-vaccine content to users simply because it’s proven to get clicks and earn them money. Bans like this look incredibly stupid when you realise YouTube itself is responsible for this disinformation getting so much traction.

I personally really preferred old Youtube, where your subscriptions were the main thing you saw along with the absolute "most popular viewed today" kinds of things.

The algorithm has only made the site worse in my experience and I always go directly to my subscriptions to be able to at least see things I'm subbed to.

I'm of the same opinion. A user's subscriptions seemingly matter very little nowadays, I've noticed. The focus on recommendations is so heavy I'm very often recommended videos I've already watched, some of them multiple times; very few recommendations are videos (old or new) from channels I'm subscribed to.

I've also noticed that many content creators are now offering email newsletters (such as Tom Scott) and encouraging subscribers to connect outside of YouTube, presumably as a response to this.

Why would YouTube recommend videos from people you're subscribed to? You already have a reliable feed of those videos on the subscriptions feed. They are trying to get you to subscribe to other channels to increase your watch time.

Youtube doesn't give me a reliable feed of my subscriptions. If I haven't watched something in a few months, it's basically dead to the algorithm.

This is obnoxious since I tend to watch series of documentaries, and I prefer to watch many episodes in a row. Stuff just poofs out of existence.

https://www.youtube.com/feed/subscriptions is your subscription feed, you can get there by clicking "subscriptions" in the left pane.

The feed on the home page is recommendations. That may, by chance, include things you're subscribed to but it will also include other recommended content and possibly not recommend things you are subscribed to as it's not meant to be a second copy of the subscription feed.

That still doesn't give reliable recommendations of your subscribed channels, it's just a chronological list of their new content.

If I subscribe to a youtuber with a back-catalog of several years of videos, I want recommendations of those prior videos, not only their brand new ones.

It did use to overwhelmingly recommend videos from channels you were subscribed to. Such videos made up a major portion of your recommendations.

And yes, there is the subscriptions feed, but it only shows new videos from subscribed-to channels; it doesn't function as a 'recommended' list for your subscriptions, which is what I miss and want.

I agree. This is actually my chief complaint about YouTube's front page. I wish there were options to categorically remove videos from channels I'm subscribed to and videos I've already watched from the recommendation feed.

It appears to me that YT is actively trying to move away from subscriptions completely, relaying on this recommendation algorithm for everything

hell I would not be surprised if with in 5 years they remove the subscribe button completely, replacing it with just the notification bell

Be thankful they still let you view a chronological feed at all.

There seems to be an AI safety problem here: The youtube algorithm is optimizing for engagement at the cost of some other less-quantifiable human value like social trust.


I am gonna go out on a limb and say Google's product dashboards likely all have engagement metrics and probably close to zero have "social trust" metrics.

Not entirely true. If it's hosted on YouTube and then goes viral on Twitter or Facebook...

I'm really curious if it would be possible for Youtube / Google etc. to expose their algorithmic interface to their public users so that they could twiddle with the settings themselves - or is that just technologically impossible given the internal structure of their systems? I really have no idea, but I've been wondering about it for some time.

Technologically possible, corporocratically impossible - it would lose the company money.

I'm not sure that 'banning' and 'changing the algorithm so that it doesn't pop up' is meaningfully different. We can just assume that YT hasn't banned this content, but it never ever shows up in recommendations. The effect would be practically the same.

It's a hard problem to solve.

Banning means the content is not accessible at all.

Changing the Algorithm would mean the content is less discoverable but could still spread outside the platform via alternative methods, such as Tweets, Links, emails, slack, etc.

There is a difference, and the effect is not the same

Admitting change to the algo inherently admits fault, so good luck waiting for that. Counsel will never allow it.

The stupid information is still out there.

It’s just not on YouTube.

We don’t live in the reality where the local book store and media owner keeping information away actually had an impact.

This only effects YouTube. Of the millions of other sites out there.

I think even the smart people are a bit stuck on YouTubes marketing effects on their limbic brain versus the reality; the bad info is just a Google search or friend posting in private away for anyone still.

YouTube is not the center of the internet.

Let me reframe: let’s say that YouTube hosts anti-vax content and as a result some percentage of people are swayed by this content to not vaccinate themselves or their children. Some percentage of them dies. Let’s say in absolute numbers it is 10,000 people. Do you think that YouTube did a good thing by allowing that content?

Or this way, let’s say that YouTube hosts earlier anti-mask content from Dr. Fauci/CDC and as a result some percentage of people are swayed by this content to not wear mask. Some percentage of them dies.

Do you think that YouTube did a good thing by allowing that content?

> Do you think that YouTube did a good thing by allowing that content?

They didn't do a good or a bad thing - they were a blank canvas someone put their art(video) on. Recently, that blank canvas is only willing to have certain art present on it - that's not a good thing. The only thing keeping it going is an inertial mass of subscribers, which over [possibly a long] time will dissipate.

Is youtube doing a good thing by allowing content that says graphine oxide will kill you and/or that masks cause brain damage to kids?

I think Youtube did a great job NOT banning pro-mask videos which were clearly against CDC recommendation.

Or I would suggest that thought police should lock those with the above-mentioned opinions up.

Yes, because back then (as much as a communications fuck-up that was) this was scientific consensus. What Youtube is banning is pure propaganda and falsehoods.

The scientific consensus was that there was no evidence that mask would work (or not work) for 2019-nCoV. There's plenty of evidence that it helps prevent transmission of other respiratory viruses.

So which hypothesis would have most likely been true at the time? Not to mention that Dr. Fauci himself had admitted that it was a noble lie (aka pure propaganda and falsehoods).

That’s a slightly better description of what happened. And I will say it again: two wrongs don’t make a right.

Surely it would be great if you might provide a better description of the event (and the timeline, long after the outbreak in Wuhan).

Surely. But frankly I don’t feel like it.

Does Youtube reinstate the videos when they become true? ;)

Not directed at you, just to get that out of the way. But I am quite fed up that the masks-don't-help meme is constantly brought up. That was in early 2020, a lot of mistakes were made back then because nobody really knew what they were doing.

Especially because it usually brought up by people that are consistently wrong about pretty much everything, while propagating active lies, as a defense against anyone pointing out the utter BS they are spreading. That gets tiresome.

That is a moral argument and has no place in a discussion of the laws of a modern western country. We are a system of law, not a system of justice.

Although I do agree with you that anti-vaxers should be treated no different than common terrorists; as Americans, under the law, they have a right to declare that they are terrorists and give their little illogical terrorist rants. The First Amendment is very clear on what is not covered, and the courts have repeatedly confirmed that being wrong, being disingenuous, and lying is covered (as long as you are not committing perjury or other similar, actual, crimes).

Our founding fathers knew exactly what they were doing when they penned this: in their day, they also had their form of denialism. The first amendment is, essentially, "It is better to keep silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubts.", but weaponized against the idiots that shall forever plague us.

That said, if a rational adult, one that we have, as a society, cannot tell the difference between the truth and the lies, then we have both failed as a society, but also have trusted an adult to actually act like one and they, personally, made the choice to act like a spoiled brat; acting like a spoiled brat is not a victimless crime, and sometimes, but not always, they are punished like an adult for violating the trust of the society that they live in.

First amendment doesn’t apply here. This is not about the government persecuting individuals on the basis of what they are saying.

It almost seems as if you believe you can't be lied to by the people you agree with. In this case, we'll call them "vaxxers" since you seem to believe only "anti-vaxers" are capable of duplicity.

Nope, because that's the beauty of science. I personally run on a "trust, but verify" basis: science allows society to come together and verify many aspects of claims: can it be done, can it be replicated, what's the likelihood of the replication actually measuring a real effect, etc.

"Vaxxers", as you have so put it, (or as I like to call them, normal human beings) have reached a level of proof that vaccines are safe, and that, specifically, the COVID-19 vaccines currently in deployment are several magnitudes safer than, say, contracting COVID-19 itself.

"Anti-Vaxxers", however, have (un?)intentionally proved that vaccines work, performing one of the largest voluntary human drug trials in history as the placebo group. Their sacrifice shall, hopefully, not be forgotten (lest we repeat it).

You think that people should be treated as terrorists because they have a different political opinion than you do?

Their opinion lacks the ability to be classified as political, to be honest. It is a scientific "opinion" that has been proven wrong, repeatedly, by actual scientific research, but also by mere observational fact.

No one has a right to harm another person. Knowingly transmitting an infectious disease, after being repeatedly informed that it is, indeed, an infectious disease, and that the victims, worldwide, total almost 5 million worldwide and continues to climb, and they still continue to spread it, that is what makes someone a terrorist: you harm, maim, and kill people to spread discord. Why you do it is immaterial, "I didn't know", "I didn't understand", "I was following orders", are not excuses in a court of law.

You're only "knowingly transmitting an infectious disease" if you leave your house with COVID symptoms or a recent positive test result, not just if you aren't vaccinated against it.

Seeing how vaccination does not at all prevent you from contracting and spreading the virus, doesn't that make everyone terrorists in your view?

The whole thing is a "correlation does not imply causation" fallacy because you just assume that changing one thing lead to the change of something else while ignoring all the other effect it has. For example by leaving the content and being a neutral platform the subjective value of the content on the platform is higher. More people who are not sure about something can listen both sides and choose based on that. However by removing it you exclude these people (for a million of other topics too) even trough they could very well end up on the "right" side after doing their own research. They wont do this if its clear that the platform already removed one side and the other therefore is propaganda. So by removing it, how many additional death would this actually cause? You just leave this out. What if it causes thousands of deaths too? Let’s say in absolute numbers it is 10000 people.

You can now make a non-emotionally decision whether removing it or not is actually a good idea because the arbitrary appeal to emotion evens out.

This is the way think about such stuff, not by making arbitrary emotional "arguments" which can not be proven or disproved and may as well be completely irrelevant or even in reverse.

Whenever the "logic" of "X people (less) die if we do Y" is used its an attempt to make it emotional instead of rational it should ring some bells and raise some flags. You can see this with autonomous driving or gun control an many other topics. Its some kind of appeal to emotion fallacy combined with false cause fallacy. And instead of convincing anyone or find common ground it just pushes people to more extreme opposition. Because you "literally kill people if you disagree with X".

The pragmatic thing is to remove the blatantly false content to prevent deaths. That’s not an emotional argument, that’s a logical one. Some percentage of people will watch anti-vax videos on YouTube, will believe them, will not vaccinate, and some percentage will die. Not having that content there would mean more people get vaccinated and fewer die. Nobody is dying from getting vaccinated.

Also, I would love to see what common ground looks like with anti-vaxxers. I don’t think they are willing to give an inch on this, but willing to be proven wrong.

The damage to the "value of the content" is done anyway even if you "just" "remove blatantly false content". Also instead of an arbitrator of truth you need an arbitrator of "blatantly false" which is exactly as impossible and comes with the same risk of abuse of power, bias and all that.

Anyway you missed the point where I assumed the death evens out aka try make an argument that isn't based on emotion an "backed" by numbers we can not know.

>Also, I would love to see what common ground looks like with anti-vaxxers. I don’t think they are willing to give an inch on this, but willing to be proven wrong.

I'm not an anti-vaxxer but I'm p sure the common ground for most of them would be to let people decide. Anti-vaxxers who want to remove pro-vaccine information to prevent people from dying form the vaccine seem to be rather rare. As far as I know most are perfectly fine with anyone voluntary injecting toxic and dying. They might be wrong on almost everything but that doesn't mean common ground can not be found.

Also by picking the furthest away extreme position to proof no common ground is possible is kind silly. We wan common ground for the majority on both sides not with the extremists.

If we were talking about tetanus I would agree. People who refuse tetanus vaccines place nobody but themselves in danger. I don’t care if you choose to forego that vaccine as it will not affect me.

People who refuse vaccines for dangerous contagious diseases directly affect others: they may pass that disease to me, to my children, to my elderly family members, etc. At this point their choice is causing me harm. What is my remedy if this happens? I can’t sue them for the death of a loved one, I can’t hold them accountable criminally.

The only path forward I see is that if you choose to not vaccinate, that you also choose to fully isolate yourself until the pandemic is over: no going to work, school, social gatherings, etc. I would be comfortable with that common ground. But that’s not what is being offered by you or even those who refuse to get vaccinated. It is always the pro-vaccine/science/reason people that must give something up for the benefit of those refusing to get vaccinated, which is less common ground and more of a one sided demand.

The "put other people in danger" fallacy is the same appeal to emotion again. Its nonsense, you would never apply this kind of "logic" anywhere else. Do you ban cars because you dont need one and all others put you, your children their grandparents in danger? No you dont.

If you dont want to be run over at any cost its your task to stay away form cars. Similarly if you dont wanna get covid at any cost its your task to hide in the basement and dont let anyone in vaccinated or not.

Alternatively you can accept that life is a deadly risk and do the common sense things to reduce the risk for you and your loved ones and move on. This may be taking the vaccine, putting on a mask, avoiding crowded places or even ware a warn west so you are less likely to be run over by a car. All of that is fine. It stops being fine if you demand others to do something so you can feel safe. Especially if what you demand infringed basic rights and/or is not solving the problem but just lowers the risk by an unknown possibly insignificant amount.

Its reasonable to demand that cars have working breaks because they need them anyway. The breaks aren't there to protect you from cars. Its however not reasonable to demand that all cars have advanced pedestrian detection that makes in impossible to run over people. It doesn't matter if you would feel safer that way or that it would safe X numbers of lives. Not because we dont care about lives but because making such a requirement would simply make most car driving people criminals and not actually save lives. Similarly if you demand unvaccinated people to stay at home, all you get is that you criminalizing people for leaving their home. It wont make them take the vaccine and it wont protect you from covid.

You are wrong on several key points but I clearly won’t convince you of anything so I’ll save myself the trouble of arguing. Take care.

What a canard. Should YouTube leave up ISIS recruiting videos so those so-tempted can examine “both sides” of the issue?

There is no both sides to the vaccine debate. COVID-19 vaccine information led to one of the first rabies deaths in a long time because the treatment involves a vaccine given after a bite, and all this anti-vaxx propaganda is doing nothing but sowing FUD about one of the most obvious cost-benefit analysis’s that can be done in the field of medicine. And during a pandemic no less. YouTube has no obligation to suffer these fools.

Bravo, YouTube.

No one claims ISIS recruiting videos are removed to save lives. The comparison doesn't make any sense. There are actual reasons why these videos are removed that aren't appeal to emotion fallacies.

It's an interesting question, but keep in mind that Youtube allows junk food advertising targeted towards children, which contributes to the obesity epidemic, and obese people have much higher medical needs and tend to die earlier (and are much more sensitive to COVID). Clearly, this contributes to untimely death, right?

So should we ban all junk food advertising on Youtube? Also, how about a ban on all pharmaceutical advertising on Youtube (which is the norm in most countries)?

IMO one of the reasons these debates go back and forth forever is because it’s impossible to come up hard and fast rules that cover every scenario.

Maybe a poorly thought out analogy but think about cars. There are a ton of car accidents every year, a good number of which result in death. But we don’t ban cars because they’re essential for the way many people live. But if 50% of all car journeys resulted in accidents? Maybe we’d be having a different conversation.

Let me reframe, in spring 2020 the CDC says don't buy or use masks, they don't work. This was spread as the gospel, by the media and probably youtube.

How many people died because of increased infections? Is that Youtube's fault or anyone else who repeated the CDCs guidelines?

That was a special case. They messed up and retracted it. They thought the N95 mask shortage would harm healthcare workers and wanted to save the top masks for those most at risk. They realized they were wrong and changed their views.

Can as much be said for anti vaxxers? Did they make the mistake and recant it? Did they change their view with new evidence? No, they're misinformed and close-minded. They ignored millions upon millions of safe vaccine uses, pointing to unsubstantiated edge cases and ridiculous conspiracies. The CDC was not buying into such rubbish and I hope they never do.

Right. But what happens before it's retracted? The incorrect position of the authority is repeated, and now in this case is basically denied distribution by Youtube.

Now in this case youtube is probably right "scientifically", but what if they weren't like with masks? You basically have 0 discussion or challenge allowed to the authorities position.

And lets just bring in the recent controversy here, a panel of scientists said third shots shouldn't be administered. Yet the government decided they should. Which position will youtube censor?

Seems like your basic point is that no trusted authority should ever be wrong about something. I'm sure you would say, "No, that's not what I meant." But that seems like the only thing that could be implied by what you're saying.

You didn't address a very important point that the parent comment made which is that trusted authorities like the CDC are more likely to correct their mistakes whereas anti-vax propagandists will never retract their statements. That's part of what makes the CDC trustworthy compared to the propagandists.

The fact that the CDC or any other trusted public organization has technically made a mistake in the past seems like an irrelevant distraction. Haven't you ever had an argument with a spouse or family member where you called out something they were doing and they came back with, "Look who's taking."? And that felt like a bullshit tactic, right?

Accusations of hypocrisy are a really common fallacy in debate. They contribute nothing to the discussion at hand and are basically just an appeal to emotion. And what you're doing is just a version of that.

What if ISIS was right about the nature of God and we will all suffer hellfire in the afterlife?

There’s no obligation for YouTube to give terrorists a platform. Regarding a booster shot, I’m sure they will make reasonable calls, nearly exclusively only silencing bad-faith actors. Much like their policy towards CP or terrorist content.

There were other "special cases". Here in California and many other places in the U.S. committees were formed by non-medical people to decide who should get the vaccine first. Decisions were made not by whose more likely to catch/spread it first, but who was most worthy.

See: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/05/health/covid-vaccine-firs...

From that article:

> Harald Schmidt, an expert in ethics and health policy at the University of Pennsylvania, said that it is reasonable to put essential workers ahead of older adults, given their risks, and that they are disproportionately minorities. “Older populations are whiter, ” Dr. Schmidt said. “Society is structured in a way that enables them to live longer. Instead of giving additional health benefits to those who already had more of them, we can start to level the playing field a bit.”

In fact, if there was a supply problem, the best populations to give vaccines to first may have been some of the most "privileged" people in our society (even if we don't like them). Frequent travelers, college kids who are going to party anyway, etc. (Of course, people who work in retail stores, or front like health workers were obvious groups that nobody disagreed with.)

The point is, _who_ got the vaccine first wasn't decided by science, but by politics.

I admit to fudging my eligibility in order to get the vaccine early. I may do this again to get the booster if I decide I need it.

"That was a special case. They messed up..."

Well good thing that'll never happen again, right? /s

Given the repeated failings and intentional or unintentional misinformation we've seen thus far, why do you believe them messing up is a "special case"?

The government lied to their citizens because they weren't prepared enough and didn't stockpile enough N95 masks for their healthcare workers. That's what I'm reading.

That's okay to you?

I think it's absolutely abhorrent. Governments technically have a full monopoly on violence/power and to have them lie to you for what - the "greater good?"

You're also putting the entirely of all people hesitant or unwilling to get the vaccination into a large group which you can then generalize (albeit foolishly)

Gonna have a tough time leading by misleading, for whatever reason that may be

If it was illegal to point out they are wrong, would they have retracted it or protected their ego?

Two wrongs don’t make a right, do they? Also this is one of the most misquoted incidents in this saga, you don’t seem to know exactly what happened there.

Good-faith vs. bad faith.

I hate that the CDC did that action, only because it gave skeptics another reason to distrust them. But it is 100% clear to anyone who, you know, was alive when it happened that they did that to prevent a mask shortage for those who needed them most.

I would rather have seen some emergency declaration that N95s must be seized from stores and go to healthcare workers, but that would have caused perhaps an even bigger panic. Because then, everyone would have freaked out, vs. what they did. Now, we only have people who were already going to distrust government giving a shit about the mask declaration last year.

Back to good-faith vs. bad-faith: I'm not certain there is more than a hair's worth of anti-vaccine content that is produced with good intention or even attempted to be backed by statistics. Put simply, I wager there is no anti-vaccine content produced out of a legitimate, well-founded public interest. It's charlatans, fools, anti-science and anti-authority interests.

What's your position on the current third shot issue? Should we listen to the scientist panel that said no, or the government that said yes?

What is youtube's position? Will it delete all government communications because the scientists said on, or will it delete all scientific discussion because the government said yes?

Let’s not add misinformation here. It was a panel of researches at the CDC that said the evidence for boosters for under 65 at risk individuals was marginal that the thought it wasn’t worth it. A similar panel of researches at the FDA said it was a close call but they said it was worth it. The CDC panel is advisory to the FDA panel, not the other way around. The debate here is specifically for under 65 at risk individuals.

Besides, the official recommendation was more on the line of "a 3rd dose is much less useful than applying those vaccines on the antivaxers". What is very clearly correct, but is of a laughable political naivety, because the preferred goal is practically impossible to reach.

That's irrelevant, as I understand it. The debate wasn't about the scientific merits of a third shot - the debate was on the prioritization of whether the limited resource (the vaccine) was best allocated for a larger set of boosters, or if they should be used for others who are not yet vaccinated (perhaps worldwide).

Anyway, like I've said in another post and in a blog before, I think Youtube has less responsibility to be a neutral platform than ISPs and registrars do. If you want to host content, you should be able to do it yourself with Internet connectivity and DNS - IMO those should be "common carriers" that don't get the privilege of bias the same way platforms like Youtube do.

Think swallowing a tube of veterinary-grade medicine is safer than an injection that hundreds of millions of people have gotten with few problems? Go for it, on your home server with a domain name.

Now, I'm gonna get some coffee.

> What's your position on the current third shot issue? Should we listen to the scientist panel that said no, or the government that said yes?

We should listen to ourselves. If we don't have enough information to make an informed decision, then study and acquire that information. No one is responsible for you except for you - with the caveats of children/dependents being not responsible for themselves.

What Youtube or any other internet information says is irrelevant until you decide otherwise.

And how do we get information if only one side isn't censored?

Go read the studies directly and see if you can spot a mistake in their methodology that would undermine the study.

> Bans like this look incredibly stupid when you realise YouTube itself is responsible for this disinformation getting so much traction.

People keep repeating that the solution to bad speech is more speech, and more speech is more money for YouTube.

Unsurprisingly, more speech on this subject has not managed to drown out the nonsense, but it has done a great job of amplifying it.

> proven to get clicks and earn them money

Aren't they already 'demonetised' (as Youtube terms its withdrawal of adverts and hence money)?

I agree though, simply not recommending them (i.e. you can be linked to them, or get them from search results only) would be better.

It's all very simple, considering Youtube has had a feature to keep videos out of their search indexes since, I don't know, forever...? It's effectively a form of voluntary shadowbanning, used by people who just want to embed videos somewhere else or, y'know, simply keep them somewhat private. YT could just say "right, anything we object to, gets removed from the search index." Two-minutes job. If you want to be more proactive, stop them from embedding too, so they can't be reposted elsewhere. The videos are then effectively neutered and only the already-nutcase will see them, limiting the virality.

I'd imagine most of this type of thing (prominent anti-vaccine personalities) is externally monetized via donations, as opposed to directly through YouTube.

> Aren't they already 'demonetised'...

That affects only content creator. YouTube, even if not directly profiting from ads, profits indirectly from you staying on the site and moving on to other 'monetized' videos eventually.

Demonetised videos can be loss leaders, pulling views to other monetised videos and having the user stay on the platform.

There is such a thing as anti-mandate pro-vaccine activists and their voice is being squashed as well. There is no nuance to the conversation.

It isn't the guy with the gun. It's actually the bullets that are to blame.

Ha. I think part of this struggle, to borrow your analogy, is that YouTube and Facebook are organizationally blind to the fact that they built a gun.

Or maybe Google is concerned. And Facebook just doesn't care.

But the root cause is "algorithms for increasing engagement will prefer shock content." Solve that, and they wouldn't need to band-aid issues like this.

Dude, the "root cause" is that profit is part of the equation. There is no "right algorithm" for controlling the public conversation. All fascism is bad fascism.

Is that overboard?

How'd you get from profit to censorship to fascism? That's a lot of jumps!

There are simpler explanations.

Fascism is governmental power (ie dictatorial control over the public conversation.) in the hands of the corporation. Which is exactly what we have here.

The only disinformation I've seen about these vaccines has been from Fauci and other pro vaxxers.

“You’re not going to get COVID if you have these vaccinations.” - Joe Biden

there was never a basis for this statement, making it clear disinformation. Grass roots research doesn't fit the bill of what that word means.

> “You’re not going to get COVID if you have these vaccinations.”

Not to defend Biden, but the vaccine decreases the probabilities of getting COVID. You still get infected with sars-cov-2, and you are probably still contagious, but it's unlikely you get COVID (as in COronaVIrus Disease, the disease produced by sars-cov-2 virus (or coronavirus), that is the thing that eventually kills you and/or jeopardizes the public health system).

I might suggest we avoid using superlatives. I have seen disinformation about vaccines both from mainstream media presumptions that breakthrough infections won't happen at all, and also from other mainstream media publishing entire segments that the vaccine might cause infertility in women or somehow affect the fetus (a spreading of FUD basically).

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact