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

Reaction by the Rector of the UFS after a meeting with student leaders
2008-02-25

Reaction by the Rector and Vice-Chancellor of the UFS, Prof. Frederick Fourie, on the agreement reached at a meeting with student leaders held on Friday, 22 February 2008

Note: This is meant to be used together with the full joint statement that was issued by the UFS management and student leaders on 22 February 2008.

The memorandum of the primes of the University of the Free State’s (UFS) residences was handed to top management on Wednesday, 20 February 2008. In the memorandum they asked for a meeting with the UFS management by Friday, 22 February 2008. Such a meeting was arranged and took place.

The UFS top management, all the residence primes as well as the house committee member for first years, the executive of the Main Campus Student Representative Council (SRC) and residence heads were present.

In contrast to what is suggested in the Volksblad report of Saturday, the discussion went off very well. There was no consternation or shouting or “emotions that ran high”. It was a civilised, decent meeting as it should be at a good university. Of course, now and again individuals spoke out strongly and very enthusiastically, but it was all decent and orderly. The contribution of the primes was insightful and well formulated.

Because the top management and I wanted to listen very carefully what the problems and frustrations were, we spent nearly five hours in the meeting. The issues in the memorandum were discussed one by one. In some cases I could take a decision immediately and finalise the matter, in other cases, the management provided information that could largely finalise a matter. A number of other matters must be investigated further.

The management undertook to respond comprehensively and in writing to all the issues raised in the memorandum by Monday, 25 February 2008. This will be handed to the primes but will not be handed to the media beforehand.
It is obvious that there are matters at the university that can be better managed and that there are problems with communication within the Student Affairs division. A major change such as the new policy on diversity places huge demands on management and the administration, and problems were to be expected. However, we understand the frustration of the students in residences.

On the other hand, students don’t always make matters easier. The strong opposition of white student leaders last year, and their unwillingness to co-operate in preparation for 2008 is well known. This year it is going better. But often student leaders take positions that are very inflexible. They also see no room for adapting old habits and simply want their own way. Their contributions are then full of statements such as “It cannot be done”. This delays measures such as the full implementation of expert interpreting services, which, for the management, is a very important measure (and which is functioning very well in certain residences). Communication from student leaders to management is also not always what it should be.

At the end of the meeting student leaders and management reached an important agreement and issued a joint statement in which they committed themselves to the integration process and to good co-operation and communication. This was an important step which is a sign of rebuilding trust. Naturally everyone will still have to work hard to build on this and to strengthen mutual trust.

The course and outcome of Friday’s discussions, as requested by the student leaders, show that issues can be addressed and resolved by means of us talking to one another. This is why it is so sad that primes and house committee members went on strike on Wednesday already and stayed in tents in front of the Main Building – leaving their residences without its leadership. This created an opening for what appears to have been well planned and co-ordinated acts of vandalism by inhabitants of residences on the campus on Wednesday.

Such vandalism is unacceptable and no one can justify it.

Fortunately, order could be restored quickly during the night and all academic activities could resume without any disruption on Thursday and Friday.

FCvN Fourie

Media Release
Issued by: Lacea Loader
Assistant Director: Media Liaison
Tel: 051 401 2584
Cell: 083 645 2454
E-mail: loaderl.stg@ufs.ac.za   
24 February 2008

 

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