In that respect obesity, idleness and alcoholism are far greater problems than Covid.
On an aspect slightly different from Bryan's:
Did we not already have some restrictions on people's "freedom" for alcoholism etc?
One major example is age limit for tobacco and alcohol. Obviously teenagers' "right" to enjoy a cigarette or getting drunk is limited, which was not the case 100 years ago. That was a new idea, while now people (well, adults) don't even think twice about that. One might argue that people under 18 have no full right to make decision, some might disagree with that, but let's put this one aside first. For adults, we are still taxed more if you smoke or drink. Now they will tax sugar drink more. As adults, we are also not allowed to smoke in bars or restaurants anymore, which was not the case only 20 years ago. There is time limit and license control in alcohol beverage selling, especially in this country. People also think that's fine.
To push the scope even bigger, why do we need driving license? Why do we limit people's right to drive their own automobile, when we don't do that for their own bicycles? Why we need eye test for driving license? Why you can't have a pint and go drive your car even when you have a license? Not to mention in war time, even the freedom of controlling one's own property can be limited.
I think the reason that we don't limit alcohol or sugar as much, is simply that there is no clear cut on its negative effect so it's not easy to enforce. Many people have some sugar, many of us have wine every week, and the health impact is very little if any. Only when you abuse it there's an issue. There are many other substances that most people don't often take are heavily restricted by law, I am not even talking about limitation, I am talking about prison sentences.
There are always limitations on "people's freedom" in a society, the question is how the rules are decided and if they are reasonably well-balanced. In a democratic country they are discussed and debated, and decided via elected governing bodies. Of course you have the right to express opinions on where you think the balance should be, that's the whole point of public discussion, but I assume you are not suggesting that we shouldn't have any restriction, because we already have many, and we will continue to have many.
I personally think limiting unvaccinated people's "freedom" (to go to a pub?), is a reasonably balanced short term (not forever) method. At some point maybe compulsory vaccination would fall within balance, too, depends on the situation.
Transmission is a totally different argument, and the vaccines aren’t particularly good at preventing transmission.
They are not particularly good, but they do make a difference, as I am sure you are aware of.