I think the main point is that when a vaccine is widely available, then lockdowns and restrictions must end. If some people are afraid of the vaccine well then they must take responsibility to protect themselves and not expect society in general to be restricted for their benefit.
The problem is the mere availability of a vaccine doesn't solve anything. For better and worse, our society doesn't work in a manner in which irresponsible people bear the full consequences of poor decisions with no impact on the broader population. As a society, we are intent on protecting those with unsustainable mortgages and the small strategic defaulter cohort from repossession, many of the rest of us pay the price for that in higher interest rates. I can't see a day where we direct our health service to refuse treatment to someone who is gravely ill based on whether or not they have availed of a vaccine.
As a sole control measure, an 80% efficacy vaccine would need to be administered to 75% of the population. The fact that the efficacy of this particular vaccine looks to be high at around 90% at 28 days after initiation is very promising as that will mean a lower coverage requirement. But questions remain as to how long the protection lasts. It's expected we will get enough of this particular vaccine to immuinise around 20-30% of the population by the end of next year. As time goes on no doubt other producers will bring their vaccines to the market, but it will be some time before we get to a point where life can go back to normal.