This position leads to inevitable follow up question: if vaccination reduces only personal risks, and does not prevent infection spread, why forcing it on anyone? If a person is unwilling to vaccinate and accepts the higher risk of a negative outcome, let him decide for himself, no?

The vaccines do reduce transmission, even if they don't prevent it.

You have to pretty much be willfully ignoring this fact to not understand it at this point.

The majority of western countries did this. Optional vaccines, restricted from public gatherings if you choose to not get it.

vaccines do not only reduce personal risks. Can you please form a better argument?

Before I form 'a better argument' for you, can you please make an argument yourself about the effects of the vaccines besides reducing personal risks?

To note: I'm personally vaccinated, but people who think it is OK to restrict personal freedoms of other people based on very fluid and agenda-driven narrative about the current state of the 'scientific consensus' do not get much respect from me. Maybe it is because I'm from a country where personal freedoms are routinely abused and I value them much more than people who take these freedoms for grated.