Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items

The new Omicron variant: What we know and don’t know

01 December 2021 | Story André Damons | Photo Charl Devenish

Prof Burt read more — Prof Felicity Burt, expert in arbovirology in the Division of Virology at the University of the Free State (UFS) and the National Health Laboratory Service (NHLS).

Even though not much is yet known about the new COVID-19 variant, Omicron, the presence of a high number of mutations – more than 30 – in the spike protein of the variant raises concern.

This is according to Prof Felicity Burt, expert in arbovirology in the Division of Virology at the University of the Free State (UFS) and the National Health Laboratory Service (NHLS). According to her, although Omicron is highly transmissible, further epidemiological data is required to determine if it is more transmissible than the Delta variant.

On Friday 26 November, the World Health Organisation (WHO) declared the new variant, B.1.1.529, a variant of concern (VOC) and assigned it the name Omicron. This assignation was based on advice from the Technical Advisory Group on SARS-CoV-2 Virus Evolution (TAG-VE), an independent group of experts responsible for monitoring and evaluating emerging variants. The following are considered when categorising a newly identified variant – are there mutations (changes in the viral genes) that are known, or that have the potential, to affect the characteristics of the virus, such as transmissibility, disease severity, immune escape, diagnostic or therapeutic escape; is there significant community transmission or increasing prevalence in multiple countries over time; are the public health and social measures effective against the variant.

With each new variant, the public health concerns are dependent on the transmissibility of the variant, the ability of the virus to escape immunity from natural infection or from vaccination, and the severity of illness caused by the variant or any change in clinical presentation. In addition, the ability of current diagnostic assays to adequately detect the variant and effectiveness of public health and social measures, must be considered.

We know, we don’t know

Answers are derived from existing epidemiological data, laboratory research, and theoretical considerations. Although we can make some predictions based on the mutations identified and the location of these mutations, the epidemiological data and laboratory research are essential to answer with certainty, and this can take some time. The presence of a high number of mutations – more than 30 – in the spike protein of Omicron, raises concern. What do we know and what don’t we know?

“What we don’t know is whether these mutations have changed the severity of disease caused by the virus. We do know that the diagnostic PCR tests currently used in South Africa are not compromised by the presence of these mutations, and in fact, one of the molecular assays commonly used to target three regions of the virus, can be used as a rapid biomarker to detect the variant. Although sequencing of the genome is used as confirmation, this assay provides a useful rapid biomarker that can be used to detect the presence of the variant; subsequently, PCR results have shown that the variant is likely already present in most provinces in the country,” says Prof Burt, who currently holds an NRF-DST South African Research Chair in vector-borne and zoonotic pathogens research.

There is also preliminary epidemiological evidence that reinfections are occurring. According to her, the occurrence of reinfections suggests some degree of immune escape; however, we do not know the extent of immune escape or the contribution of waning immunity towards reinfections. “Laboratory tests, in which the live virus is tested against samples from both recovered and vaccinated people, are required to confirm whether existing antibodies can neutralise the variant. The tests for neutralising antibodies require specialised facilities and is dependent on culturing the virus.

“These tests are already underway in the country and should provide more information in the coming weeks.

Neutralising antibody tests, although time consuming, are relatively easy to perform compared to tests to determine the role played by other arms of the immune response.”

Vaccines still best option to fight COVID-19

Prof Burt, who has worked on viral haemorrhagic fevers and arboviruses at the National Institute for Communicable Diseases (NICD), says it is known that vaccines are highly effective in reducing the severity of disease and fatalities in individuals infected with other variants, such as Beta and Delta, despite mutations in critical regions of the spike gene in the variants.

The epidemiological data acquired from cases and the results of laboratory tests for neutralising capability will contribute towards understanding the effectiveness of the vaccine against Omicron. The questions regarding severity of the disease and level of protection from previous infection and vaccines are priority areas to understand the impact of this variant. The early identification of the variant and the initiation of vital research and data analysis highlight the importance of genomic surveillance.

Cases of Omicron have already been confirmed in Israel, the United Kingdom, Europe, Australia, and Africa. Travel restrictions have previously been shown to be ineffective in stopping the geographical spread of new variants, merely delaying the inevitable, and at significant cost to economies. “We know with certainty that vaccination has reduced the severity of illness and death with previous variants; even in the face of reduced neutralising ability, there was sufficient protection to save lives,” says Prof Burt.

She concluded, “Globally, the impact of vaccination is evident in countries experiencing fourth waves, with a reduced number of deaths compared to previous waves. Many decisions in life are based on a risk assessment and consideration of the pros and cons. Vaccines save lives. Vaccines definitely boost waning immune responses from natural infection.”

“This is certainly not the time to reject the vaccine based on perceived risks from inaccurate social media spreading harmful disinformation compared to the known risks associated with contracting COVID-19 and the known protection against severe disease afforded by the vaccines.”

News Archive

MBA Programme - Question And Answer Sheet - 27 May 2004

2004-05-27

1. WHAT MUST THE UNIVERSITY OF THE FREE STATE (UFS) DO TO GET FULL ACCREDITATION FOR THE MBA PROGRAMMES?

According to the Council on Higher Education’s (CHE) evaluation, the three MBA programmes of the UFS clearly and significantly contribute to students’ knowledge and skills, are relevant for the workplace, are appropriately resourced and have an appropriate internal and external programme environment. These programmes are the MBA General, the MBA in Health Care Management and the MBA in Entrepreneurship.

What the Council on Higher Education did find, was a few technical and administrative issues that need to be addressed.

This is why the three MBA programmes of the UFS received conditional accreditation – which in itself is a major achievement for the UFS’s School of Management, which was only four years old at the time of the evaluation.

The following breakdown gives one a sense of the mostly administrative nature of the conditions that have to be met before full accreditation is granted by the CHE:

a. A formal forum of stakeholders: The UFS is required to establish a more structured, inclusive process of review of its MBA programmes. This is an administrative formality already in process.

b. A work allocation model: According to the CHE this is required to regulate the workload of the teaching staff, particularly as student numbers grow, rather than via standard management processes as currently done.

c. Contractual agreements with part-time staff: The UFS is required to enter into formal agreements with part-time and contractual staff as all agreements are currently done on an informal and claim-basis. This is an administrative formality already in process.

d. A formal curriculum committee: According to the CHE, the School of Management had realised the need for a structure – other than the current Faculty Board - where all MBA lecturers can deliberate on the MBA programmes, and serve as a channel for faculty input, consultation and decision-making.

e. A system of external moderators: This need was already identified by the UFS and the system is to be implemented as early as July 2004.

f. A compulsory research component: The UFS is required to introduce a research component which will include the development of research skills for the business environment. The UFS management identified this need and has approved such a component - it is to take effect from January 2005. This is an insufficient element lacking in virtually all MBA programmes in South Africa.

g. Support programmes for learners having problems with numeracy: The UFS identified this as a need for academic support among some learners and has already developed such a programme which will be implemented from January 2005.

The majority of these conditions have been satisfied already and few remaining steps will take effect soon. It is for this reason that the UFS is confident that its three MBA programmes will soon receive full accreditation.

2. WHAT ACCREDITATION DOES THE UFS HAVE FOR ITS MBA PROGRAMME?

The UFS’s School of Management received conditional accreditation for its three MBA programmes.

Two levels of accreditation are awarded to tertiary institutions for their MBA programmes, namely full accreditation and conditional accreditation. When a programme does not comply with the minimum requirements regarding a small number of criteria, conditional accreditation is given. This can be rectified during the short or medium term.

3. IS THERE ANYTHING WRONG WITH THE ACADEMIC CORE OF THE UFS’s MBA PROGRAMMES?

No. The UFS is proud of its three MBA programmes’ reputation in the market and the positive feedback it receives from graduandi and their employers.

The MBA programmes of the UFS meet most of the minimum requirements of the evaluation process.

In particular, the key element of ‘teaching and learning’, which relates to the curriculum and content of the MBA programmes, is beyond question. In other words, the core of what is being taught in our MBA programmes is sound.

4. IS THE UFS’s MBA A WORTHWHILE QUALIFICATION?

Yes. Earlier this year, the School of Management – young as it is - was rated by employers as the best smaller business school in South Africa. This was based on a survey conducted by the Professional Management Review and reported in the Sunday Times Business Times, of 25 January 2004.

The UFS is committed to maintaining these high standards of quality, not only through compliance with the requirements of the CHE, but also through implementing its own quality assurance measures.

Another way in which we benchmark the quality of our MBA programmes is through the partnerships we have formed with institutions such as the DePaul University in Chicago and Kansas State University, both in the US, as well as the Robert Schuman University in France.

For this reason the UFS appreciates and supports the work of the CHE and welcomes its specific findings regarding the three MBA programmes.

It is understandable that the MBA review has caused some nervousness – not least among current MBA students throughout the country.

However, one principle that the UFS management is committed to is this: preparing all our students for a world of challenge and change. Without any doubt the MBA programme of the UFS is a solid preparation.

Back

Economic and Management Sciences

Education

Health Sciences

The Humanities

Law

Natural and Agricultural Sciences

Theology and Religion

Open Distance Learning

Business School

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