Scishow is good for up-to-date info about a variety of scientific fields. If you want to check if your scientific knowledge is up to date (or if you want to keep it up to date), I highly recommend checking them out. As for evolution in particular, I can’t really say. Biology is an umbrella term for a vast number of incredibly niche sub-fields, and even something that would seem straightforward, like evolution, can be broken up into multiple fields of study. For instance, I know people who study evolutionary microbiology, which is the study of how bacteria evolve.
I’m not sure if you’re looking for general knowledge of scientific concepts or if you’re looking for in-depth analysis of leading-edge, niche scientific concepts. If it’s the former, I’m sure that videos from even 10 years ago is probably fine. World-changing breakthroughs don’t happen that often. And while maybe there might be minor inaccuracies, overall it’ll still be accurate enough to get a general understanding. If it’s the latter, you’ll unfortunately have to learn how to read scientific literature
So, I’m not a virologist, so I can’t answer about viruses. But I am a bacterial microbiologist, so I can talk a bit about pathogenic bacteria. Short answer: yes. Long answer: yes, kind of.
It really depends on what the vaccine is targeting and what the pathogen is. My favorite pathogen is Streptococcus pneumoniae, the leading cause of pneumonia. So let’s look at it from that perspective. There are vaccines for S. pneumo, but the vaccines only target certain stains of S. pneumo. And every 5 or so years, we make a new version of the vaccine because the types of S. pneumo that are causing disease keeps shifting. If the vaccine accounts for type A, then type B starts to cause more disease. If the vaccine accounts for types A and B, then type C starts to cause more disease. If the vaccine amounts for types A through C, then type D starts to cause more disease. Repeat ad nauseum.
So yes, we can cause shifts in pathogen populations through vaccines. This is evolution, in its strictest definition. That being said, there’s a lot of caveats. First, that doesn’t mean that vaccines are bad. Maybe we want to shift the population (for instance, toward a milder form of the disease). Or maybe it doesn’t strictly matter if the shift occurs (if we can just keep making new vaccine versions, a la S. pneumo).
Second, even though vaccines may be shifting the population, that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t work. The S. pneumo vaccine significantly decreased infection and mortality from pneumonia. And while a lot of people still die from pneumonia today, it’s nothing compared to the mortality before modern medical science.
Third, it really depends on the vaccine. Specifically, how hard is it for the pathogen to mutate that portion that the vaccine is attempting to mimic? There are certain proteins that are more difficult to mutate than others. For instance, there are certain proteins that are involved in binding to and attacking the host. These proteins tend to be somewhat difficult to mutate, since mutating those proteins tend to also make the pathogen less efficient at attacking the host. If the vaccine trains the immune system to recognize these proteins, it can be really difficult for pathogens to evolve away from these proteins. Not to say that it’s impossible for pathogens to evolve anyways (pathogens are surprisingly tricky), but a well-designed vaccine, along with good adoption in the population, can significantly hinder a disease.
It’s really fine if nobody shows up. If anything, you could always just post or cross post something every once in a while to help the community pick up steam. What you should be concerned about is too many people showing up. The reddit admins (as well as certain sections of redditors, it seems) have forgotten that moderating is pretty tedious and not everyone has the time or energy to spend on moderating. If I were you, make your moderating policy clear from the start and stick to it as objectively as possible. When changes to that policy has to be made, clearly communicate to your community what changes are made and why. Some changes will not be accepted by the community, and you should do your best to remind yourself that it’s not a personal attack on your values if they disagree.
Frankly, the decisions that we make are chemical reactions. The difference is in the complexity of the decisions that we can make. At that point, though, in order to answer your question, we would need to argue about what one would consider to be a decision that’s complex enough and a decision that’s not complex enough, and that leans much more into philosophy and ethics rather than science.
I can only tell you that, from a mechanistic point of view, there’s not really much distinguishing our decision making process from, say, the decision making of a flatworm