Some relevant knowledge is not being communicated widely because science journals refuse to publish it. Our most recent preprint estimating relatively low herd immunity thresholds has just been rejected. The top reason was: https://twitter.com/DiseaseEcology/status/1291141086291701760

"Given the implications for public health, it is appropriate to hold claims around the herd immunity threshold to a very high evidence bar, as these would be interpreted to justify relaxation of interventions, potentially placing people at risk."

This is the very sad reason for the absence of more optimistic projections on the development of this pandemic in the scientific literature. Alternative peer review schemes now have a crucial role to play... URGENTLY!

Building on a model-based analysis of 4 European countries we elaborate on the prospects for the pandemic to be resolved by the end of 2020. Our analysis suggests that herd immunity thresholds are being achieved despite strict social distancing measures.

I would not dream to suggest that policy should be guided by these views alone, but shouldn't this be a factor among others in debates and decisions about public strategies.