In 1976 we rushed a vaccine without adequate safety tests (formal clinical trials) and more people were hurt by the unsafe vaccine than would have been sick without the vaccine.
In software there's things your overlook, etc... I'm guessing biological 'hacking' is the same, I'd imagine making a vaccine is similar in a lot of ways to coding - lots of trial/error, except errors = dead people.
But luckily we don’t have a binary choice. A dead vaccine is usually much safer. We can start the vaccine to high risk groups early and watch carefully, expanding access as results come in. We’ve already started clinical human trials a month ago.
There is no safe option. Every option will kill some people. Your goal is to minimize the expected number of deaths as best you can. That’s just the way it is. That may mean doing nothing OR it may mean finding a way to accelerate a vaccine program OR some combination of expanded early access with careful monitoring to stepped expansion of the treatment access.
I think this highlights the difference between risk and uncertainty. Risk is something calculable. Uncertainty is either incalculable or the error bars are so wide that it is practically incalculable.
I, for example, am willing to take a calculated risk and ride a motorcycle. It's a fun, economical way of traveling. I am not willing to ride a motorcycle I am unfamiliar with without a close inspection. Maybe an unfamiliar bike is in complete operational order. Maybe it has a crack in a frame wield and the frame may snap during normal operations. The error bars for what can go wrong on an uninspected motorcycle are too wide and it introduces a level of uncertainty I am not comfortable with.
The downsides of a bad vaccine have been shown multiple times in multiple places. It's _very_ bad. I'm unwilling to accept uncertainty when the downside is so large.
It would be naive to think that a majority of governments are primarily concerned with not hurting people, especially when stakes are high.