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

The failure of the law
2004-06-04

 

Written by Lacea Loader

- Call for the protection of consumers’ and tax payers rights against corporate companies

An expert in commercial law has called for reforms to the Companies Act to protect the rights of consumers and investors.

“Consumers and tax payers are lulled into thinking the law protects them when it definitely does not,” said Prof Dines Gihwala this week during his inaugural lecture at the University of the Free State’s (UFS).

Prof Gihwala, vice-chairperson of the UFS Council, was inaugurated as extraordinary professor in commercial law at the UFS’s Faculty of Law.

He said that consumers, tax payers and shareholders think they can look to the law for an effective curb on the enormous power for ill that big business wields.

“Once the public is involved, the activities of big business must be controlled and regulated. It is the responsibility of the law to oversee and supervise such control and regulation,” said Prof Gihwala.

He said that, when undesirable consequences occur despite laws enacted specifically to prevent such results, it must be fair to suggest that the law has failed.

“The actual perpetrators of the undesirable behaviour seldom pay for it in any sense, not even when criminal conduct is involved. If directors of companies are criminally charged and convicted, the penalty is invariably a fine imposed on the company. So, ironically, it is the money of tax payers that is spent on investigating criminal conduct, formulating charges and ultimately prosecuting the culprits involved in corporate malpractice,” said Prof Gihwala.

According to Prof Gihwala the law continuously fails to hold companies meaningfully accountable to good and honest business values.

“Insider trading is a crime and, although legislation was introduced in 1998 to curb it, not a single successful criminal prosecution has taken place. While the law appears to be offering the public protection against unacceptable business behaviour, it does no such thing – the law cannot act as a deterrent if it is inadequate or not being enforced,” he said.

The government believed it was important to facilitate access to the country’s economic resources by those who had been denied it in the past. The Broad Based Economic Empowerment Act of 2003 (BBEE), is legislation to do just that. “We should be asking ourselves whether it is really possible for an individual, handicapped by the inequities of the past, to compete in the real business world even though the BBEE Act is now part of the law?,” said Prof Gihwala.

Prof Gihwala said that judges prefer to follow precedent instead of taking bold initiative. “Following precedent is safe at a personal level. To do so will elicit no outcry of disapproval and one’s professional reputation is protected. The law needs to evolve and it is the responsibility of the judiciary to see that it happens in an orderly fashion. Courts often take the easy way out, and when the opportunity to be bold and creative presents itself, it is ignored,” he said.

“Perhaps we are expecting too much from the courts. If changes are to be made to the level of protection to the investing public by the law, Parliament must play its proper role. It is desirable for Parliament to be proactive. Those tasked with the responsibility of rewriting our Companies Act should be bold and imaginative. They should remove once and for all those parts of our common law which frustrate the ideals of our Constitution, and in particular those which conflict with the principles of the BBEE Act,” said Prof Gihwala.

According to Prof Gihwala, the following reforms are necessary:

• establishing a unit that is part of the office of the Registrar of Companies to bolster a whole inspectorate in regard to companies’ affairs;
• companies who are liable to pay a fine or fines, should have the right to take action to recover that fine from those responsible for the conduct;
• and serious transgression of the law should allow for imprisonment only – there should be no room for the payment of fines.
 

Prof Gihwala ended the lecture by saying: “If the opportunity to re-work the Companies Act is not grabbed with both hands, we will witness yet another failure in the law. Even more people will come to believe that the law is stupid and that it has made fools of them. And that would be the worst possible news in our developing democracy, where we are struggling to ensure that the Rule of Law prevails and that every one of us has respect for the law”.

 

 

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