As someone who got all three shots, and has no regrets: There's nothing wrong with their logic, it's just that my risk tolerances change based on the context. I

As someone who got all three shots, and has no regrets: There's nothing wrong with their logic, it's just that my risk tolerances change based on the context. If I'm escaping from, say, a war; I'm not going to complain if the last flight out of the country is a Boeing 737 MAX - at least not until I'm in a safe country and can switch planes. Likewise, the risk tolerances for vaccines are extremely low normally[1], but I'm willing to accept a slightly riskier one if it means not getting infected with an extremely risky novel coronavirus with very well documented negative effects. Furthermore, the extremely politicized nature of the vaccine development process[0] constrains corporate misbehavior. In other words, the CEOs knew they had eyes on themselves and had to restrain themselves. Corporate misbehavior is far more likely when the public stops caring and corporations can start capturing regulatory agencies. In other words, their evil is very boring. "Company invents new vaccine that kills people" is an unusually sexy kind of evil, which means it gets unusually scrutinized. "Company neglects higher-than-average asbestos in talcum powder" is so boring nobody cares even after they get nasty cancer. [0] Which, oddly enough, resulted in Trump getting booed for taking credit for the vaccine he funded. [1] As far as I'm aware, these risks have not borne out into increased harm from the vaccines. I feel like there would have been a conservative media shitstorm if it had.