Is the Development and Approval of a Vaccine for Sars-CoV-2 Suspiciously Quick?

Like expert Charlotte Summers (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/dec/03/the-covid-vaccine-trust-safe-works-political), I will be waiting in socially-distanced line, when 2 jabs of the vaccine for Covid-19 (irrespective of the technology involved) becomes available for me. I agree with her, that mRNA vaccines, although new, do seem to be a logical and smart way of getting the viral protein to generate the immune response. I personally think this technology could even have fewer side-effects, than vaccines generated in traditional ways. No virus (dead or weakened) is introduced to the body. The mRNA also only has a short half-life in living systems. Like Summers, I am also convinced that the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency have not skimped on the approval process for the Pfiser/BioNTech vaccine. The stated priorities for giving the vaccine also seem sensible. They will start with the most vulnerable (old people in Care Homes and their carers) and then go on to people with an increased risk of exposure to Covid-19 (first responders, teachers, transport workers etc). At the end of her article, Summers raises an interesting point. She says "For me the question is not how we managed to achieve a vaccine for Covid-19 in such a short period of time, but rather why we have not yet managed to make the same impact on diseases such as tuberculosis, HIV and malaria which have been killing people for many years?" Could I indicate a possible answer? Research is expensive and, in normal times, drug companies have to spend much of their time raising the finance for the research and the required testing for the approval process, should it be needed. The Covid-19 pandemic has meant that a) getting finance and b) finding subjects, on which to test their drugs, have both been much easier. Drug companies are money-making enterprises. It is instructive to note that they currently spend much more on attempting to find a cure for male pattern baldness, than they do on technologies to treat malaria (which kills thousands of children in Africa). Drug companies have to follow the money, and they know that males in the developed world will pay more for baldness cures, than impoverished people in Africa will pay to cure malaria. It doesn't have to be like this but, in our system, commercial considerations rule.