Before watching all of this unfold I had never followed the clinical trial process and what wasn't intuitive to me I slowly adjusted to because I heard enough scientists explain the process. What wasn't intuitive is that we would have an effective and safe vaccine at the very beginning of a disease that ended up killing more than 300,000 people here in ten months, but that it would take exactly that long to figure out whether it was safe and effective.
Even if we don't take into account the possibility that the public would use a very bad outcome from a poorly tested vaccine to refuse vaccination ever again, I wonder what the expected average outcome would be of vaccinating people after a couple of months with only the quickest of studies to assess tolerability and some optimization of doses while measuring antibody titers, t cell response, trying to guess correlates of immunity, and picking the best option. Then we vaccinate the highest risk people gradually, while telling them not to change their behavior based on the expectation they have immunity and in parallel run the full sequence of clinical trials because some control is needed to actually assess the data although there would be safety and efficacy monitoring of people who are vaccinated. If the vaccine was unsafe, how many people would be impacted by the time they figure it out?
I suppose from the standpoint of the Chinese, they are probably able to force people to get vaccinated and so public confidence in vaccines matters a bit less (I am not trying to take a gratuitous shot at their government but I don't think they would have an issue with forcing people to get vaccinated). Maybe they thought they could run parallel trials while vaccinating at risk individuals that they think would produce a better average outcome.