> This is another really great reason why the herd immunity threshold is lower than it has naively been claimed.
It sounds like you're starting from the happy assumption - herd immunity is much easier to achieve than we believe - and working backward to find data which justify your hope. To get good predictions, we have to be dispassionate and not assume the happy case.
A realistic assessment would probably assign some sort of a probability range to different thresholds - a model might suggest there's a 60% chance the threshold is 60%, a 5% chance it is 40%, a 20% chance it is 80%, a 10% chance it is 90%.
And any model has to take into account that any piece of data might be wrong, including this data about T-cell immunity.
It sounds like you're starting from the happy assumption - herd immunity is much easier to achieve than we believe - and working backward to find data which justify your hope. To get good predictions, we have to be dispassionate and not assume the happy case.
A realistic assessment would probably assign some sort of a probability range to different thresholds - a model might suggest there's a 60% chance the threshold is 60%, a 5% chance it is 40%, a 20% chance it is 80%, a 10% chance it is 90%.
And any model has to take into account that any piece of data might be wrong, including this data about T-cell immunity.