I took gp to mean that HSV-1 "on top" renders one immune to HSV-1 below,
not HSV-1 and 2 below. And that appears to be true. Interesting that
1 and 2 appear to be "assymetrically" related, from your link: "As
HSV-1 and HSV-2 have similar pathogenesis and host interactions, many of
the concepts for development of an effective vaccine are likely relevant
to both viruses. In addition, infection with HSV-2 provides partial
protection against HSV-1, although the reverse does not appear to
be true, and thus there is potential for generation of
cross-reactive immunity. The possibility that an HSV-2 vaccine may
provide protection against HSV-1 increases its potential value and may
shift the optimal time for immunization to early childhood, instead of
the more problematic adolescent vaccination series." (My emphasis,
references removed)
[ed: to add, I'm not entirely sure on how/if hsv-1 (the same strain of hsv-1) can "move" -- I recall sex. ed. stating that the most common cause of HSV-1 in the genitals and eyes were self-induced -- but that might have been the other way around (HSV-2 moving from the genitals to the eyes)]
[ed: to add, I'm not entirely sure on how/if hsv-1 (the same strain of hsv-1) can "move" -- I recall sex. ed. stating that the most common cause of HSV-1 in the genitals and eyes were self-induced -- but that might have been the other way around (HSV-2 moving from the genitals to the eyes)]