We all live in hope a vaccine will emerge from the immense effort being expended by clever people.
But what if some people refuse to take it? What if lots of people refuse to take it?
Why might they refuse?
There are reasons which don't add up.
There are people who may spend too much time on the internet and pick up false information - nonsense, in other words.
Some anti-vaxxers believe "a secret society of billionaires around the world are plotting global domination, and they plan to control people through a vaccine".
Others believe "Bill Gates will use microchip implants to fight coronavirus", according to the Reuters news agency.
Reuters did a fact check on the theory and declared it "false".
"There are no plans to use this future technology during the coronavirus outbreak," the reputable agency concluded.
But are all anti-vaxxers crazy?
There are less loopy opponents of vaccination.
Some argue compulsory vaccination infringes on their personal freedom.
To which the usual reply is individual liberty is restricted in lots of ways. Motorcyclists are compelled to wear helmets. Drivers must wear seat-belts. Smoking is not allowed in restaurants. Our freedom to drive on the right is restricted.
It's a question of balancing individual freedom against the wider good of society and there are many uncontroversial cases where an individual's freedom to act as he or she wishes is curtailed for the greater good.
What about ethical considerations?
The Catholic and Anglican Archbishops of Sydney said their flocks could have an "ethical dilemma" if the vaccine currently being developed in Oxford University relied on material from an aborted fetus.
They wrote to Prime Minister Scott Morrison saying the federal government should "pursue similar arrangements for alternate vaccines that do not raise the same ethical concerns".
Do they have a case in law?
They might do. In Australia, there is no legal right to object to vaccinations on conscientious grounds.
But a religious body could argue a vaccination interfered with their freedom of belief because the way it was developed or produced was abhorrent and contrary to their basic religious faith.
Indeed, Christian Scientists won an exemption from the compulsory immunisation of children.
The judgment said: "The Family Assistance (Exemption from Immunisation Requirements) (FaHCSIA) Determination 2012 ensures that children of practising members of the Church of Christ, Scientist are exempt from those immunisation requirements."
As the church put it: "Most of our church members normally rely on prayer for healing."
This exemption was then removed but the fact it had been granted in the first place indicates the matter is certainly one that's debatable.
Can the government compel people to be vaccinated?
It could try but it is unlikely to - and even more unlikely to succeed in making any law work.
Dr Michael Eburn, of the ANU College of Law, said compulsion for the whole population would not be enforceable.
It's true there are laws in some places. In Victoria, for example, infected individuals could be ordered to have a vaccination.
Other states and territories are not so tough.
Technically, the federal government could pass a law to compel people to be vaccinated but lawyers think it would be unlikely and very open to challenge in court on the grounds that pricking someone's skin would be a serious infringement of human rights.
But right across Australia, vaccination is obligatory for some workers, like those who work with the old and the young. "No jab, no job" or "No jab, no pay" as it's put. "No jab, no play", for sportspeople who refuse to be innoculated.
The federal government's "no jab, no pay" requirement withholds benefits from parents who don't vaccinate their children.
This has been tested in court. In 2014, a father argued his daughter should be immunised despite the mother's objection. The Family Court ruled in his favour - and, all but opponents of vaccination would argue, the daughter's favour.
What about the morality of refusing a vaccination?
Three philosophers at Australian universities liken refusing to be vaccinated to being a "conscientious objector" to doing military service.
"Since infectious disease, like an invading military force, can pose a severe potential threat to society, it is arguable that, by analogy to their duty to contribute to military forces, ordinary people have a duty to contribute to the effort to prevent infectious diseases," Steve Clarke, Alberto Giubilini and Mary Jean Walker wrote.
Their recommendation is that people who refuse vaccination should have to prove their genuine, strong ethical objection.
Objectors to military service do that by accepting prison. Vaccine refuseniks could pay a heavy financial penalty.
"When the risk of contagion is very significant and the disease is sufficiently severe, this system would have to imply a financial compensation which is too burdensome for almost anyone to be met."
In other words, only objectors on the strongest of conscientious grounds would be prepared to pay the financial penalty.
What about the hardline anti-vaxxers?
"As long as vaccination has existed, there have been such activists, just as there will always be a minority who stand outside the mainstream, reject orthodox medicine and its interventions, mistrust government and value natural health," according to Julie Leask, professor of public health at the University of Sydney.
She thinks too much attention can be given to them - except when "activities could lead to direct and immediate harm to individuals, such as the promotion of infectious disease parties, harassment or threats".
She felt a better policy would be to educate the public and win over "vaccine-hesitant parents and communities".