LOL. No, not quite but that is another discussion that can be had.

Let's try this example. Let's say 80% of all providers have been exposed and developed their antibodies to the SARS-CoV-2 virus. That would certainly be considered a level consistent with herd immunity. But what would than mean in terms of spreading the virus to clients, other providers (generally though clients I suspect) or the spread of infections in the general community?

 
The concept of herd immunity is about outbreaks that don't propagate widely and die out on their own. That is basically what happens with most flu and things like the common cold.

 
But clients are much more likely to get infected from someone other than a provider (work, their children, church, shopping, dining out...). So the likelihood a client infects provider is more about outside the hobby than the presence or absence of provider herd immunity. Likewise, given a client were to get infected, while some providers might be infected by that person the level of immunity in the provider sub population would have virtually no impact on how the infections from that client propagate to other mongers or the local population in general.

 
I suspect what you're tying to get at is that it might be relatively safe to see providers now. I think that has been true for the entire time. Everyone has always been at significantly more risk of coming in contact with someone infected at work or buying groceries and the like than seeing a provider. The different is that IF the provider is infectious you have a new 100% change of getting infected. But the probability of her being infected is much, much lower than that of at least one of the random strangers you cross paths with if you go shopping for food.