This week's comments from the World Health Organization that we may never have a "silver bullet" for coronavirus were difficult to hear.
But many experts say we needed this wake-up call, so we can start imagining our future without a vaccine.
"It needed to happen. That bubble needed to be burst to say, 'Hey we're not going to see any changes over the next couple of years so strap in,'" says Bruce Thompson, dean of health sciences at Swinburne University.
Even if we had a vaccine today, Professor Thompson says it would take 18 months before it became available at your local GP.
And even then, we don't know how much it would protect us, particularly groups more vulnerable to COVID-19 including the elderly and those with chronic health conditions.
Then there would always be the issue of people who wouldn't be able to access the vaccine or who would choose not to get vaccinated.
"We need to plan for the worst-case scenario and that is quite simply, we will be living with COVID-19 for a very long time," said infectious diseases epidemiologist Linda Selvey from the University of Queensland.
There doesn't need to be a vaccine to get on top of COVID-19 and the way in which Australia more or less eliminated HIV (through safe sex practices and a prophylaxis drug) is evidence of just that, he says.
So what do we need to focus on to move forward without a vaccine?
The way we test
Experts agree rapid testing is something we need to do better.
Right now we have only one way to find out who has COVID-19 - the deep nasal and oropharyngeal collection done at a testing clinic. This is not sufficient for the long term, and we can expect technology to catch up.
At-home COVID-19 testing is another possible option, according to senior microbiologist Taghrid Istivan at RMIT.
"It will be like a pregnancy test, if you feel unwell, you visit a pharmacy and purchase a test to do at home. This is possible because we have the kinds of technology to develop this kind of test."
For example, one pharmaceutical company in the US has developed a testing kit that returns results within 10 minutes from a drop of blood (using a finger prick) and has a 98 per cent accuracy rate.
Australia's Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) is currently undertaking an expedited approval process for rapid home-based tests and the Doherty Institute will inform their best use.
The Federal Government has also invested millions in the development of a simple pathology test that would give a result within 30 minutes.
Breath testing is another promising option that researchers in Tasmania are working on in collaboration with a manufacturer of bomb detection tools.
"Fifteen years ago, we were asked to rapidly detect explosives and reduce a 30-minute process to 30 seconds, to help make Australia and the world safer, which we were able to do with GreyScan," Professor Michael Breadmore from the University of Tasmania says.
"We will use what we learnt about how to do chemistry exceptionally quickly and apply this to virus detection."
Professor Thompson says this looks set to be a game-changer.
The way we trace
The COVIDSafe app has not worked as hoped, but it could still be our ticket to more freedom if it is comprehensively improved, Dr Selvey says.
"Contact tracing becomes much harder the more we resume normal life, so this must be a priority."
COVIDSafe's ability to achieve its purpose has been questioned after it was revealed the software only works effectively on locked iPhones about a quarter of the time or less.
But a team at Swinburne University is developing a way to predict where the virus is heading so people can be warned in real time.
The 'Beat COVID-19 now' app relies on users answering questions about symptoms (even if they don't have any) every day.
"By knowing where people are potentially having symptoms from COVID-19 we can help communities and health services plan better, and prepare even before people are tested and diagnosed," research leader Professor Richard Osborne said.
The research team for this app are currently in discussions with the Federal Government.
Professor Thompson agrees the technology needs to change but so do our attitudes towards it.
"The tricky thing is people have to trust the Government to use the information."
"People are concerned about privacy but for us to mingle more, we need to do this."
The way we work
The expectations employers have for their staff and also the environments they provide for them to do their jobs need an overhaul, the experts say.
This should have already happened, Professor Thompson says.
"Employers are now realising they made a bad decision forcing people to work — now they have had a third of their business taken away from them."
It might be a long shot for some businesses, but employing more staff gives them the capacity to actively encourage their staff to stay home if sick.
"Recovery money should really be invested in workplaces to make them safer by improving ventilation for example, but also to increase staffing numbers — that would make a big difference," Dr Selvey says.
The re-engineering of industries in which staff can't work from home has been something health experts have been talking about for months, particularly in abattoirs and aged care.
"I think what the WHO was trying to do [in the 'no silver bullet' statement] was stimulate conversations and discussions between governments and communities because if we were to re-design workplaces, that's not something that can be done in a week or two," Dr Selvey says.
The way we recover
If we can't cure it, we can hopefully treat it.
There are two main goals of therapeutic treatments; to make people better, or to reduce their viral load, says Paul Griffin, director of Infectious Diseases at Mater Health Services.
For treatment of symptoms, there have been promising results from trials of dexamethasone and for antiviral therapies, Remdesivir has shown some potential, but not enough, says Dr Griffin.
"A highly effective antiviral would really be huge step forward as it could also be used as a kind of prophylaxis [preventative treatment] to help with outbreaks. We don't yet know what that drug is but there's lots of research happening."
Dr Griffin is the principal investigator of two vaccine studies (with US biotech company Novavax and the University of Queensland) and a third one is on the horizon. He is also part of a collaborative effort across Australia to investigate therapeutic treatments.
Dr Istivan is also part of research into COVID-19 therapies but says progress hinges on support.
"Science can come up with solutions but all of this needs money. There are therapies on the horizon but without funding and collaboration they cannot move forward," she said.
"In the end, scientific and medical research has to be supported with funding and also with more collaboration between scientists in Europe, the US and China."
But how is vaccine development going?
Dr Griffin is still "very confident" there will be at least one vaccine that's highly effective in the near future but says it's not wise to put all our eggs in one basket.
He is also very concerned about an already strong anti-vaxxer sentiment even before a vaccine exists.
Right now there are six vaccines in phase three of trials, including one being conducted by the Murdoch Children's Research Institute in Australia.
Stage three will answer the most critical question — does this vaccine protect people against coronavirus?
"So before we get too carried away with which vaccine is going to effective, that's the data we need to see."Ask us your coronavirus questions