That's probably... fine? these vaccines are developed in a process far more open than any typical pharmaceutical research. The risks at issue here are unlikely

That's probably... fine? these vaccines are developed in a process far more open than any typical pharmaceutical research. The risks at issue here are unlikely to be of the bad-faith variety that can be discouraged with liability. Instead, these will be genuine known and unknown unknowns. There will be a lot of scrutiny, which will allow governments and the public at large to make these decisions under uncertainty with the benefit of the best possible information at the time. With the company not enjoying a significant informational advantage, the moral and practical case for liability just doesn't make any sense. That is a standard approach for the otherwise intractable collision of a legal system that apportions the damages of anything that goes wrong on the party mostly responsible for it, and the medical reality of almost all interventions coming with some potential for grievous harm: by default, your surgeon would always be "responsible", in sense of civil law, not morality or criminal law. Because the general principle allocates responsibility with those making decisions. "Informed consent" is about getting you into a position to make decisions, and thereby share in the responsibility.