Nope–if anything, it makes it worse. Herd immunity is when most people can’t get infected, due to vaccines (or prior exposure) so that people that are most susceptible to infection (children, immunocompromised, etc) are protected.
Picture it as a zombie outbreak; 95% of the population needs to be bitten (normal people), while another 5% can get infected just by breathing the air near a zombie (vulnerable population). Looks nasty, right? Now imagine that 75% of the population has taken a vaccine that renders them immune to becoming a zombie, but only those that will turn if they’re bitten can take it. The 5% of vulnerable people can’t take the vaccine. But their chances of becoming a zombie are reduced, because three out of four potential victims won’t turn regardless, meaning that the chain reaction of infection can’t get up to speed. That’s “herd immunity”.
In this case, this isn’t “herd immunity”, this is prophylaxis in action (although the two are related). The people taking the drug are still vulnerable to infection if they stop taking the drug (or are unlucky), and, being people that are, presumably, part of the “at-risk” population for HIV infection, they are keeping the potential vectors (themselves) immunized. To extend the metaphor above, they’re the zombie handlers who specifically dose themselves with the anti-zombie vaccine because they face the greatest risk. But the “herd” at large does not share their immunity and can face a devastating outbreak if a carrier enters the population, because the “herd” is not immune.
See the distinction?
[/ teacher’s hat]