False dichotomy. I'm not ranting, but you can't think logically. It's not a choice between restricting freedom and spreading the disease. One can move about without doing the latter--and while the risk is higher, it is doable. Spreading the disease requires at the very least proximity--which one can take steps to avoid while being ambulant--and for many diseases, direct contact is required. It's perfectly acceptable to have such actions restricted while one is a carrier, as they directly infringe on others' rights (indeed, unwanted contact is illegal anyways)**. But just being able to move about does not directly cause spread of the disease, and thus a restriction on that is unjustified, as there is only a modest increase in the chance of spreading the infection.
**To elaborate further, one can count as unwanted contact that would have been unwanted had the other party known that the subject is infectious, which takes care of a situation where the other party otherwise allows the subject to get close to them because they were not notified of the subject's infectious status.