I can see that it's an imposition. But it's not a freedom issue unless the consequences of both action and inaction affect only you. With the Covid vaccine, your action of taking the vaccine may give you side effects, so affects only you, but your inaction in refusing to take it affects others, because you increase the chances of them contracting the virus. The argument against this, that everyone has been offered the vaccine, so by refusing to take it you are only increasing the risk to others who have refused... is relevant only in an idealised situation that doesn't exist in the real world. There are for example plenty of people who can't take the vaccine for medical reasons, and people who are too young to take it, and there is still of course cross-border travel.
My analogy of someone waving a gun around in a public place, if somewhat dramatic, is pertinent.
It is obvious that gov restrictions has a lot of negative affects. People who obey (encourage) these restrictions participate on every negative effect of these restrictions. So taking vaxx
do affects others. Sorry to say, but your statement is not true.
I do not say, that not taking vaxx do not effects others. It does, like everything else, that's how universe works. But blaming anti-vaxxers from all negative effects and renounce your own share... It looks like really hard gov brainwash.
To your analogy - it is totally not pertinent. You live in real world, full of microorganism, get used to it. If you don't like it, if you panically fear of it, I have only one recommendation: psychologist. It is not normal to live in such a fear - contact with microorganisms is base of good immunity. Comparing natural environment with shooting people is... hardly over the line. Reality cannot be simplified too much even in theoretical conversation - from certain border it starts to be lies.