Last time I looked, I found a Australian Health Dep paper on it, but that was a while ago.
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/06/vaccine-development-barriers-coronavirus/
https://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/articles/vaccine-development-testing-and-regulation
The Aust one said 96% failure rate, I think. The World Economic Forum one says 99%, that's the first link.
Except neither of those links actually provide those numbers -- or your ten-year figure:
Normally, vaccines go through a 10 year process, to make sure they work, and are safe.
If you actually look at either of those, you'll find that the ten-year figure was actually for the
entire development process. Thus your ten-year figure is actually five.
In this case, most of the work was originally done for COVID's somewhat less scary relative,
SARS, back in 2002-2004. Because SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID) is closely related to SARS-CoV-1, most of that development work was still applicable, and we had a selection of vaccines (or, more technically, vaccine candidates) by
mid-March.
Then, of course, we get into time that can be cut by simply throwing resources at the problem and advancements in technology. In the trials for the Salk polio vaccine, for instance, simply
analyzing the data took most of a year. Between computers and the sheer level of concentrated scientific focus (and thus available personnel), I guarantee you that the statistical analyses for the COVID trials took nowhere near that. That's also not taking into account how recruitment is typically spread out over a period of time, or how disease characteristics drive things.
Y'see, the later (and longer-taking) trials aren't the ones that tell us if the vaccine is
safe (although they continue to monitor for safety, and those trials tend to find any rare side effects that the earlier phases missed); they're the ones that tell us if the vaccine is
effective -- i.e. that it works and protects against the disease.
In this case, they took a fairly dramatic step and
combined the Phase II and Phase III trials. That is, they said "fuck it, this is a crisis" and tested the things for safety and efficacy
simultaneously. As such, you can effectively drop the year or two normally spent on Phase II trials from the timeline.
(And no, that two years isn't monitoring time -- it's usually an artifact of recruitment time and adjustments to the vaccine's delivery schedule. Believe it or not, it can take a really long time to cycle a few hundred people through a clinic while carefully monitoring their health and immune systems.)
So, in this case, that "ten year" figure is really closer to three or four... and that part is mostly spent
seeing if the vaccine works, not seeing if it's safe.
Oh, and...
The Aust one said 96% failure rate, I think. The World Economic Forum one says 99%, that's the first link.
... neither article you linked provides either number. As such, you appear to be essentially pulling it out of your ass.
Edit: Oh, and I forgot to mention that the regulatory review of a new vaccine can easily take a year or two... and those ten-fifteen year timelines include that. So, yeah, cut that 3-4 year figure down even further... and the remainder
still isn't decreased safety monitoring; I'd just have to get into statistics and effect size numbers to explain it.