What you're suggesting here takes a lot of time and can't be rushed. You can have safety or speed. They're typically mutually exclusive in this kind of thing. And a rushed/unsafe vaccine would damage public trust and end up being worse than nothing at all - so my suspicion is that medical practitioners will err on the side of caution, regardless of pressure/money being thrown at them. We don't want a thalidomide type situation again.
Similar versions of some vaccine candidates have already shown to be safe in humans. Again, I'll point to the Oxford candidate which is a variation of a vaccine for MERS, a similar coronavirus, but my understanding is that there are other candidates that are also building on previously established iterations of similar vaccines.
Ironically, the safety and immunogenicty results for the ChAdOx1 MERS vaccine were just published ten days ago. If anything, those trials illustrate just how changeable our traditional vaccine timelines are given enough resources and urgency.
Five years after MERS was first identified, they began a study of just 24 participants for safety and immune response and two years after that just published the results.
And yet less than four months after the Oxford clinicians began work on the ChAdOx1 n-Cov-19 variant of the vaccine they have already injected it into 1,100 trial participants with plans to inject it into another 5,000 within a month! That's unheard of, and if in February you had told any expert with a lifetime of experience in vaccine development that this would happen they probably would have laughed you out of the room. But that's where we are. A willingness and ability to inject it into 6,100 people also suggests a high degree of confidence in its safety.
Could this crash and burn in the efficacy test? Of course it can and it might very well. But luckily there are now 90 plus other candidates out there. So, while I acknowledge I'm applying some of my inherent Mustachian optimism to this subject, it's not completely blind optimism even if I doubt the relevance of previous vaccine development timelines to the current situation.
Further reading and relevant excerpt:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30160-2/fulltext#seccestitle140In conclusion, ChAdOx1 MERS was safe and well tolerated at all tested doses. A single dose was able to elicit both humoral and cellular responses against MERS-CoV. The results of this first-in-human clinical trial support clinical development progression into phase 1b and 2 trials in the Middle East. Healthy adults, health-care workers, people who are occupationally exposed to camels, and older age groups with comorbidities will be recruited and assessed for safety and immunogenicity of ChAdOx1 MERS to be given as a single or two-dose administration regimen.And:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30317-0/fulltextThe experience with SARS and the emergence of MERS, particularly during the outbreaks of 2014–15 in the Arabian and Korean peninsulas, were harbingers of the consequences of COVID-19, and similar pathogens, on all sectors of society—not only in overall morbidity and mortality, but also in the capacity to level economies and disrupt social order. If MERS has been eclipsed by its pandemic cousin, then the lessons learned have prepared the global vaccine research and development community for moving coronavirus vaccines forward at an accelerated pace, such that first-in-human COVID-19 vaccine trials are moving on unprecedented, shortened timelines.Edit: The vaccine candidate injection numbers above should be roughly halved, as almost half the participants will receive a placebo instead of the vaccine candidate. My understanding is that it's not exactly half, as a small subset received a double dose of the vaccine candidate (non blind) to assess dose variation. This doesn't change any of the points I've made in the above.