Maybe Some Ad Discretion, Youtube?

  I get it, Youtube. I watch some "grown-up" content at times, such as music videos from the likes of Kid Rock, Pink, or even on occasion really weird stuff like Die Antwoord. It is a guilty pleasure. Youtube might be forgiven for thinking I would be interested in commercials of an adult nature. In no case should they ever show such commercials prior to wholesome videos. There is absolutely no reason I should turn on a video about rocket launches and be served an ad with the opening seconds being women talking about [independent bedroom activities]. It's like Google has never considered that people might watch different content based on who is in the room together, or simply might want to decide for themselves when to indulge in indecent topics.
  I immediately checked my google ad-settings to see if there was some category that listed me as interested in adult topics. There is no obvious category for such things. Nor should there be, really. Content providers should realize they cannot see into the homes and should never make assumptions about the current audience's appropriateness for adult content. Commercials should never be more indecent than the viewer-chosen content they are playing beside, to ensure viewers desire such material at the moment. I'm tired of content companies across the board not respecting their viewers.

Apparently, we're too pathetic for simple rules

https://townhall.com/columnists/gabriellahoffman/2020/05/29/northams-mask-edict-puts-suffering-businesses-in-a-nowin-situation-n2569634

It seems an argument against requiring masks is:
“It will be up to the businesses and their untrained employees to confront someone who isn't wearing a mask to either compel the violators to wear a mask or expel them from the premises. As we have seen in other states, this has led to confrontations between businesses and their customers, even in one case leading to a shooting death at a Dollar Store.” 

Seriously? Ever see the signs in stores, "No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service". It's a simple system: abide by the rules or we're simply not dealing with you. We don't even need to ask violators to leave, just don't serve them. That's all it takes. I can't imagine that not meeting the responsibility expected from businesses. "You're not wearing a mask, so I'm not serving you".  Most people will get tired of not being served, and comply. If people get angry over that and start shooting, chances are there's more to their instability than just the masks. Many in the anti-shutdown crowd are keen to say, "it's mostly old people who would have died soon anyway". Well, that shooting probably was going to happen anyway; scattered violence from random lunatics is not a good argument against any policy.
  And what's with this "untrained employees" part? Are we really so pathetic of a people that we can't understand and enforce a rule as simple as, "You must be wearing a mask to shop here"? Since when did basic communication require training? I'm sure someone will say, "But what if someone refuses, and gets angry...they clearly need training!" Most business already deal with unruly customers and have training in place for such issues. Just continue doing whatever you already do.

Extrapolating Early Numbers

Reference:
   https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/27/upshot/coronavirus-deaths-new-york-city.html
  
I've so far been unwilling to join the crowd that says "COVID-19 was overblown". The numbers seen so far support plausible values(had we done nothing), close to their original predictions. Originally the government gave a potential number of deaths on the order of 2 million, then on the order of 250k, then 67k, and now(with 79k official deaths) it's back up to a predicted 140k by August.There is of course controversy over which deaths to count as COVID-19, which to count as other causes, but there's one statistic that is most useful right now: excess deaths(expected deaths for an average year vs actual deaths). This value can't separate deaths caused from the virus to deaths caused potentially by the response, and can underestimate deaths from the pandemic if we had a drop in deaths due to other causes, but if we assume our actions didn't significantly raise the death rate by accident then it gives a reasonable ball-park figure to how bad this virus is.

New York has been hardest hit in the U.S. by COVID-19. They were hit early, hard, and long. They've likely seen an overall infection rate far beyond what the rest of the U.S. has seen so far, but obviously not beyond what is possible. Let's use them as a bellwether for the rest of the U.S., with a few assumptions:

1. Our response did not itself cause significant extra deaths. There's likely some who did die due to new delays in treatments for survivable ailments, but lacking data suggesting otherwise, we should assume this isn't a large percentage of excess deaths.
2. There's nothing special about New York's COVID-19 or their population that makes COVID-19 more deadly there than elsewhere. It isn't a more dangerous mutant version. The population is close enough to average demographics and risk profiles. Comparing deaths per cases there(if we knew the "true" count), would result in similar death-rate in other states. It is true that they have a higher population density than other areas, which will impact the rate of spread, but shouldn't on its own change the death-rate.
3. There's nothing special about their handling of COVID-19 that would result in a death rate different than throughout the U.S. Their hospitals, while overworked at times, could do little else to save lives. Those who died would have died anywhere else in the U.S. There are of course the accusations that sending stable COVID-19 patients back to their nursing homes has increased deaths by exposing vulnerable populations; while this can increase the apparent death-rate in the short-term, if we assume most would eventually get infected anyway, then it changes little in the long-run.

With these assumptions and some real-world values, we can do some basic math. New York City has had over 20k "excess deaths" as of April 25th(more deaths than expected over the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic; keep in mind these values are weeks out of date and are now higher). 16k of those have been attributed to COVID-19; some of the rest may also be COVID-19 caused, or may be side-effects of the pandemic(such as reduced treatment access for non-COVID-19 ailments). In any case, NYC has 10 million people. The U.S. has 320 million people. So...(320m/10m)*20k = 640k. Were the rest of the U.S. to see the same percentage of their population infected, with the same death rate, we would have 640k extra deaths. Even if we limit this to the 16k deaths attributed to COVID-19, that's still 512k deaths. 512k deaths may not be close to the original fears of over 2 million deaths, but keep in mind this is with a successful "flatten the curve" campaign to prevent severely overloading the hospitals. Those who needed treatment largely got treatment. New York City's experience validates the scale of the original national predictions.