Sometimes we buy that argument, and sometimes we don't.

Take drunk driving, for example. We don't give people the freedom to do that. On the other hand, we do allow people to smoke and to eat unhealthily, both of which impose costs on the rest of us. So there seems to be a balance - we allow some behavior that impacts our personal freedoms, but not egregious impacts.

So: If someone doesn't get vaccinated, how bad is the impact to you? Given that vaccinated (and boosted) people can still get infected and spread the infection, how bad is the impact to your personal freedom to live a healthy and free life if someone doesn't get vaccinated?

What makes you say that? What is your reasoning? Just because you say so does not make it so, nor does it make it logical, reasonable, or enforceable. We have a legal framework for making these kinds of decisions in the United States. While I understand your position and can see some of its merit it's not about how you feel things should be but about providing a system of rights and powers that prevent the government from spiraling out of control.

Relevant argument if these vaccines reduced transmission in a meaningful way.

Doesn’t apply to this virus since vaccines don’t prevent transmission