> Probably for a number of reasons, starting from our desire as a society to ensure they are as broadly applied as possible, which is in turn driven by our desire as a society (read: "collective") to ensure that they're as effective as possible, which means driving for herd immunity and even things like permanent eradication.

That's not relevant. If vaccines cause more good than harm (which I believe they do), then the harm they do cause can and should be priced in to their development as an incentive for their creators to minimize that harm.

Only insane, stupid, or malicious people would say "let's purposely remove incentives to design things in a less harmful way".

And most reasonable people understand that gigantic pharma companies making billions of dollars per vaccine are suddenly going to stop because they're exposed to additional liability.

The only people advocating for insulation from liability are either pharma shills or have been duped by them. Sane people possessing the ability to engage in basic logic understand that it's not reasonable.