According to the Wikipedia page on herd immunity, it seems to be that it generally has to be at about the 80s. But my point is that it's somewhat of a false dichotomy. Herd immunity is a sliding scale. Someone chose an arbitrary point to say that it happens or it doesn't happen. But there still is an effect at any size. IANAD, but I would expect a 60% reduction would still be enough for a significant amount of the disease to be prevented in the non-immune population. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if it was higher. If you vaccinate 90% of the population, then herd immunity can't protect more than the remaining 10%.
But my point is that it's somewhat of a false dichotomy. Herd immunity is a sliding scale.
And indeed the table you mention does shows ranges rather than points. But even the bottom of those ranges are far above 60%.
Another month, another rationality quotes thread. The rules are: