Yes. This is why I am suggesting an alternative. It is all in the blog post.

This is an attenuated live vaccine, though. So the risks are similar or worse than just doing a real, engineered vaccine.

If it's mere paperwork, we can solve that with a regular vaccine just as fast. And the regular vaccine would be more likely to be safe, even at an early stage. (Note: I'm a rando, not a medical or biological professional.)

if bureacracy held up the spread of a live coronavirus, we wouldn't be in this mess

The proposal is to intentionally apply a live virus to people, so absolutely there are bureaucratic barriers to this (and for good reason). There is no a priori reason why this should have less red tape than a dead virus.

If we're just going to ignore any regulations and bureaucracy for a live virus (like this proposes), we can do the same for a dead virus.

The reason why this should be able to advance faster than a normal vaccine approach is that we will have epidemiological data that it is safe in humans. Sure it would be nice to have double blinded placebo controlled data, but good epidemiology data is still data on which a regulatory decision could be made. In the current circumstances I think this will satisfy the regulators.

It would only be logical to require a "vaccine-strain" that has the capability for uncontrolled spread to go through much more stringent trials and paperwork than one that is limited by distribution.

The whole argument about attenuated strains being a possible shortcut seems to be a variation of the "natural medicine" fallacy.

Except the experiment has been done for us already by nature. We are not doing the experiment, just observing what has already happened. Sure you would not be able to make a strain of unknown attenuation in the lab and spread it around (this would be very dangerous), but you can use the data that nature has provided us. I am proposing we go and collect that data.