You're correct that "when" herd immunity is achieved is an estimate. But that doesn't make the author right. The point of the article is that you can't talk abo

You're correct that "when" herd immunity is achieved is an estimate. But that doesn't make the author right. The point of the article is that you can't talk about it at all -- at least, not with out so-called "broader context" to weaken the discussions -- lest you undermine her preferred public health policy. I don't particularly care what any particular person thinks about the "herd immunity threshold". I don't really think it's a useful discussion, as a single number (i.e. "herd immunity" has probably been achieved and lost locally multiple times over the course of the pandemic). But the suggestion that anyone who dares make a prediction about it should be scolded for being an apostate is a steaming pile of anti-intellectual bunkus. And frankly, if someone disagrees with the author's preferred public health dictates, they should be allowed to talk about that too. I missed the memo where we made her judge and jury for scientific discourse.