It's fair if the degree of disclaiming is proportionate to the need and the pace.

They shouldn't be off the hook completely. They should still have to show they have conducted a responsible level of testing and checking for the circumstances, that they are continuing to refine that verification even after widespread deployment, and to motivate that to be done all levels requires some degree of moral hazard remains in place for them. In other words there should be some sharing of risk. Imho.

They are still going through clinical trials its just that getting to that stage has been accelerated.

So this isn't like we are relying on AZ to create it, test it and sign it off. National agencies will ultimately sign off on whether it can be used or not. Given the high profile nature of this vaccine you can be sure that results will be widely studied, and the opportunity to hide results they don't like will be limited given we all know the trials are occurring.

I think they're mostly producing this on a break even/no profit basis for at least the initial roll out?

If there is some sharing of risk, but no profit to be had (and ultimately profit is what buffers you against risk) then why would you be involved at all? Let some other company take the risk?

You can nationalize companies.

That's the responsibility of the FDA, EMA etc., to make sure all of the above is met. However to be open to vaccine injury claims, in the current societal climate (lots of malicious actos and antivaccine disinformation among the public), would risk the financial viability of vaccine makers. That's a longtime problem in the US (hence some of the vaccine makers are protected by the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act) and other countries.