Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
11 August 2021 | Story André Damons | Photo Anja Aucamp
Prof Felicity Burt from the University of the Free State (UFS) and the National Health Laboratory Services (NHLS) holds an NRF-DST South African Research Chair in Vector-borne and Zoonotic Pathogens Research. She is also an expert on arbovirology in the UFS Division of Virology.

New variants of severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) have the potential to influence the size and duration of waves of infection and may prolong the duration of COVID-19’s stay with us. Despite the development of vaccines and the technology available to adapt vaccines in the future to address the emergence of new variants, it is extremely unlikely that COVID-19 will ever be eradicated.

The emergence of new variants has illustrated the importance of continually monitoring circulating variants for changes in viral proteins associated with cell binding (in other words, influencing entry of the virus into a cell) and immune responses (which would influence vaccine efficacy and reinfections). 

Prof Felicity Burt from the University of the Free State (UFS) and the National Health Laboratory Services (NHLS), who holds an NRF-DST South African Research Chair in Vector-borne and Zoonotic Pathogens Research, says the current vaccines are effective against severe disease, but do not prevent transmission. Hence, complete eradication of the virus is unlikely, as the virus will continue to circulate at low levels in the population even if high levels of vaccine coverage are achieved.  Prof Burt is also an expert on arbovirology in the UFS Division of Virology

“To date, the only pathogen that has been eradicated globally is the smallpox virus. This was achievable because of a highly efficacious vaccine and because smallpox caused a disease that was readily recognisable, enabling rapid isolation of afflicted patients. In contrast, a virus such as SARS-CoV-2 that can cause asymptomatic infections in which the person is unknowingly infected and able to shed and transmit the virus, is probably impossible to eradicate,” explains Prof Burt.  

Development of affordable treatment options remains important 

The current vaccines are, however, able to reduce the severity of the disease until a vaccine is available that prevents complete transmission of SARS-CoV-2; therefore, the development of affordable treatment options remains important. Novel therapeutics, such as an antiviral drug that interrupts replication of the virus, or monoclonal antibodies that neutralise the virus, would go a long way to contribute to the treatment of infections.  

“Currently, monoclonal antibody therapy is available in higher-income countries. Monoclonal antibodies mimic our natural antibody response, targeting specific regions of the virus, neutralising the virus, and stopping it from entering cells. Monoclonal antibodies have been used to treat other viral infections such as Ebola; however, they have significant limitations due to cost, availability, and high specificity, meaning that mutations in emerging variants could influence their efficacy. They are unlikely to be an affordable option in lower-income countries.”

Mutations become problematic

According to Prof Burt, viruses have a propensity to acquire mutations, or changes, in their genetic make-up during replication, and as expected, this virus has changed during the pandemic and will inevitably continue to mutate.

“These mutations become problematic if they influence the way the virus is transmitted between people, or if the disease profile changes and the virus causes a more severe disease, or if the changes result in a virus that is not recognised by the body's immune response.  In other words, the virus is capable of hiding from, or can escape, the immune response that a person has developed as a result of a previous natural infection or from vaccination. 

“If the virus has changed such that an existing immune response does not recognise it, then a person can become reinfected. Hence, changes in the ability to escape immunity are considered to confer an advantage to the virus. Although there are changes in all regions of the viral genes, we are concerned with changes that occur in the gene that codes for the spike protein. This protein is responsible for binding and entry of the virus into cells, hence changes in the spike protein that allow the virus to more readily enter cells are considered to be an advantage to the virus.” 

Variants of interest vs variants of concern

Prof Burt says there is now some evidence suggesting that antibodies produced in response to the Beta variant – the dominant variant during the second wave in South Africa – are less efficient at neutralising the Delta variant of the virus. In addition, there is evidence suggesting that the Delta virus can replicate to higher levels in the body, resulting in a higher viral load. Although the kinetics of each variant are still not completely understood, the combinations of higher viral load, and the potential for reinfections to occur will likely contribute towards a larger wave of infection.

“The World Health Organisation (WHO) and international partners characterise emerging variants as variants of concern (VOC) or variants of interest (VOI). Although there are multiple new variants globally, only a small proportion of these meet the definition. The Lambda variant, initially recognised in South America, is deemed a VOI. This is a level below VOC, indicating that it has mutations that are known or have the potential to affect the characteristics of the virus and that the prevalence is increasing in multiple countries over time. Currently, Lambda is not a concern in SA. In contrast, a VOC has the same characteristics as a VOI, but in addition, has one or more of the following: increased transmissibility or is associated with change in disease severity or clinical presentation, or the public health and social measures are less effective against the variant,” says Prof Burt.  

Vaccines will likely need to be adapted to accommodate future variants 

It is impossible to predict which variants may emerge next, explains Prof Burt. “Fortunately, although the current vaccines may not prevent mild disease, they have all been shown to reduce the incidence of severe disease and fatalities. The technology for adapting vaccines is available – but of course – if a vaccine has to be adapted, it will take some time for that to be available. As this virus is now well established globally and will continue to evolve over the years, it is likely that, in the future, vaccines will be required to be adapted to accommodate circulating variants.”

“Although there is some reduction in vaccine efficacy against the currently circulating variants, there are fortunately high levels of protection against severe disease and hospitalisation in people who have received the single-dose Johnson & Johnson vaccine or both doses of the Pfizer vaccine. In other words, they are fully vaccinated,” says Prof Burt. 

Despite reduced effectiveness and potential for vaccine breakthrough, it is still important for people to be vaccinated, as it reduces viral load and duration of virus shedding. Less viral replication means that the virus has less chance to mutate, with less chance of new variants emerging.   

News Archive

Media: Sunday Times
2006-05-20

Sunday Times, 4 June 2006

True leadership may mean admitting disunity
 

In this edited extract from the inaugural King Moshoeshoe Memorial Lecture at the University of the Free State, Professor Njabulo S Ndebele explores the leadership challenges facing South Africa

RECENT events have created a sense that we are undergoing a serious crisis of leadership in our new democracy. An increasing number of highly intelligent, sensitive and committed South Africans, across class, racial and cultural spectrums, confess to feeling uncertain and vulnerable as never before since 1994.

When indomitable optimists confess to having a sense of things unhinging, the misery of anxiety spreads. We have the sense that events are spiralling out of control and that no one among the leadership of the country seems to have a definitive handle on things.

There can be nothing more debilitating than a generalised and undefined sense of anxiety in the body politic. It breeds conspiracies and fear.

There is an impression that a very complex society has developed, in the last few years, a rather simple, centralised governance mechanism in the hope that delivery can be better and more quickly driven. The complexity of governance then gets located within a single structure of authority rather than in the devolved structures envisaged in the Constitution, which should interact with one another continuously, and in response to their specific settings, to achieve defined goals. Collapse in a single structure of authority, because there is no robust backup, can be catastrophic.

The autonomy of devolved structures presents itself as an impediment only when visionary cohesion collapses. Where such cohesion is strong, the impediment is only illusory, particularly when it encourages healthy competition, for example, among the provinces, or where a province develops a character that is not necessarily autonomous politically but rather distinctive and a special source of regional pride. Such competition brings vibrancy to the country. It does not necessarily challenge the centre.

Devolved autonomy is vital in the interests of sustainable governance. The failure of various structures to actualise their constitutionally defined roles should not be attributed to the failure of the prescribed governance mechanism. It is too early to say that what we have has not worked. The only viable corrective will be in our ability to be robust in identifying the problems and dealing with them concertedly.

We have never had social cohesion in South Africa — certainly not since the Natives’ Land Act of 1913. What we definitely have had over the decades is a mobilising vision. Could it be that the mobilising vision, mistaken for social cohesion, is cracking under the weight of the reality and extent of social reconstruction, and that the legitimate framework for debating these problems is collapsing? If that is so, are we witnessing a cumulative failure of leadership?

I am making a descriptive rather than an evaluative inquiry. I do not believe that there is any single entity to be blamed. It is simply that we may be a country in search of another line of approach. What will it be?

I would like to suggest two avenues of approach — an inclusive model and a counter-intuitive model of leadership.

In an inclusive approach, leadership is exercised not only by those who have been put in some position of power to steer an organisation or institution. Leadership is what all of us do when we express, sincerely, our deepest feelings and thoughts; when we do our work, whatever it is, with passion and integrity.

Counter-intuitive leadership lies in the ability of leaders to read a problematic situation, assess probable outcomes and then recognise that those outcomes will only compound the problem. Genuine leadership, in this sense, requires going against probability in seeking unexpected outcomes. That’s what happened when we avoided a civil war and ended up with an “unexpected” democracy.

Right now, we may very well hear desperate calls for unity, when the counter-intuitive imperative would be to acknowledge disunity. A declaration of unity where it manifestly does not appear to exist will fail to reassure.

Many within the “broad alliance” might have the view that the mobilising vision of old may have transformed into a strategy of executive steering with a disposition towards an expectation of compliance. No matter how compelling the reasons for that tendency, it may be seen as part of a cumulative process in which popular notions of democratic governance are apparently undermined and devalued; and where public uncertainty in the midst of seeming crisis induces fear which could freeze public thinking at a time when more voices ought to be heard.

Could it be that part of the problem is that we are unable to deal with the notion of opposition? We are horrified that any of us could be seen to have become “the opposition”. The word has been demonised. In reality, it is time we began to anticipate the arrival of a moment when there is no longer a single, overwhelmingly dominant political force as is currently the case. Such is the course of history. The measure of the maturity of the current political environment will be in how it can create conditions that anticipate that moment rather than seek to prevent it. We see here once more the essential creativity of the counter-intuitive imperative.

This is the formidable challenge of a popular post-apartheid political movement. Can it conceptually anticipate a future when it is no longer overwhelmingly in control, in the form in which it is currently, and resist, counter-intuitively, the temptation to prevent such an eventuality? Successfully resisting such an option would enable its current vision and its ultimate legacy to our country to manifest in different articulations, which then contend for social influence. In this way, the vision never really dies; it simply evolves into higher, more complex forms of itself. Consider the metaphor of flying ants replicating the ant community by establishing new ones.

We may certainly experience the meaning of comradeship differently, where we will now have “comrades on the other side”.

Any political movement that imagines itself as a perpetual entity should look at the compelling evidence of history. Few movements have survived those defining moments when they should have been more elastic, and that because they were not, did not live to see the next day.

I believe we may have reached a moment not fundamentally different from the sobering, yet uplifting and vision-making, nation-building realities that led to Kempton Park in the early ’90s. The difference between then and now is that the black majority is not facing white compatriots across the negotiating table. Rather, it is facing itself: perhaps really for the first time since 1994. Could we apply to ourselves the same degree of inventiveness and rigorous negotiation we displayed leading up to the adoption or our Constitution?

This is not a time for repeating old platitudes. It is the time, once more, for vision.

In the total scheme of things, the outcome could be as disastrous as it could be formative and uplifting, setting in place the conditions for a true renaissance that could be sustained for generations to come.

Ndebele is Vice-Chancellor of the University of Cape Town and author of the novel The Cry of Winnie Mandela

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept