> Also interesting to note: so we can develop and approve vaccines for new diseases within months? It doesn't have to take 10 years if we really want to eradica

> Also interesting to note: so we can develop and approve vaccines for new diseases within months? It doesn't have to take 10 years if we really want to eradicate a disease badly enough? My conclusion: we're under-funding research in microbiology. "We" as in: the entire world. In general. Given the harm caused by this vaccine, we consider a higher cost of development to be acceptable. That includes monetary cost, the cost of redirecting many other research resources to this research, and the potential cost of rushing development with less testing than normal. This is all sane to do, because corona also has a really high cost. Other diseases have a much lower cost, and hence investing less in them makes sense. Sure, the world could probably focus all its attention on fixing a disease, and make meaningful process. But what would the world have to give up in order to do that? Would that trade-off be worth it. With Corona, it becomes worth it a lot sooner than with something else.