Government action, in response to an actual thing the government does not control, a pandemic.

Just the basics of liability would seem to have to include being "liable". Hard to be liable for a pandemic.

But the government does control it's response to the pandemic, right? Is it not liable for it's response?

I don't know what the right answer is here but it's an interesting discussion.

We have laws that limit legal action vs government, and even simpler laws like good samaritan laws for reasons.

We don't want people who make good faith efforts to protect / help people sued... because the end result was not entirely positive.

Dude is in a car accident and his car is on fire. I pull him out but his arm breaks?

I didn't cause the accident, neither did he, I didn't have to pull him out of that burning car.... but it probabbly makes sense that I'm not legally liable because we want people to help.

Same goes for this sort of ultra expanded view of government liability.

If they're not protected, the result is without question inaction. Voters don't want that, nobody really does.

No no no. Good Samaritan laws serve the public interest of not having individuals go bankrupt because they tried to help. It doesn't apply to companies and it definitely ought not to apply to government. The government is often sued for things it thought was right. For example, California thought it would be good to sterilize people and was sued for it. They must pay regardless of intent and how it may have been viewed at the time.

Good Samaritan laws address the obvious challenges for a well meaning individual to act in a difficult time where that action might have negative consequences, while they act for the greater good.

The concept is just general fairness / incentivizing good acts and isn't hard to understand within the concept of anyone acting, not just individuals.

The idea that someone / anyone must pay regardless is just ignoring the actual circumstances. That makes no sense.