Another fantastic preprint on BA.3.2's propensity for children, this time from Yunlong Cao & co.
They not only confirm David Ho's lab findings (that kids have ~0 Ab response to BA.3.2) but dig into the details of exactly why kids are so vulnerable to BA.3.2.
www.biorxiv.org/content/10.6...
1/6
A continuously renewed population of young, largely immunologically naive children would provide a stable source of susceptible hosts, potentially helping to sustain long-term circulation even as population immunity rises in older age groups.
#BA32
Taking the idea one step further:
Could the establishment of a reservoir in young children- as discussed in my previous post - be one of the routes by which SARS-CoV-2 transitions into endemic circulation?
That dynamic does not apply to most other variants. It could help explain why BA.3.2 has been around for so long and may suggest it has long-term staying power, especially if, beyond its antibody-evasion advantage, it is particularly well adapted to infecting young children.
#BA32
More broadly, could this be part of the pathway by which other coronaviruses that once spread epidemically or pandemically became endemic?
This means its primary host population is effectively renewed every four years, with new cohorts of largely immunologically naive children entering the population, aside from maternal antibodies.
BA.3.2 - a "forever" variant?
I've always wondered why BA.3.2 has persisted for such a long time.
Now we know that it mainly targets the 0-4-year age group, and we know why. Could that explain its persistence?