This is positive news, although antibodies are only part of the immune response. So it's not a complete picture.
No vaccine protects 100% of the people who get it 100% of the time. The concept of 'vaccine effectiveness' isn't new; the flu vaccine mix is usually only about 40-60% effective in any given year. Which is why some people who have been vaccinated against flu still get flu. (The same goes for other diseases, such as meningitis, diphtheria, mumps and so on. Although most other vaccines are much more in the 85-95% effectiveness range.)
I also think many people misunderstand what herd immunity actually means. It isn't some Avengers-style forcefield that stops anyone getting ill ever.
It's imperfect, like every other strategy, but the aim of herd immunity is to help prevent major, galloping community outbreaks like we've seen with covid over the last year and a half.
Herd immunity as a concept rests on three things working together at a societal level: vaccinations, immunity through exposure/recovery, and a certain level of natural pre-existing immunity to that particular disease. (This last aspect is usually a small minority, but it does happen; one of my brothers discovered a few years ago that he's naturally immune to HIV, for example.)
It's actually a good example of social responsibility happening semi-organically. There will always be people who aren't immune to any given disease, whether through natural vulnerability or lack of vaccination (or both). But if there's a sufficient level of herd immunity among the population as a whole, those who are vulnerable are at least part protected or buffered by the members of the population who are immune.
It's another way to protect the vulnerable. It isn't 100%, but then what is?