Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
01 December 2021 | Story André Damons | Photo Charl Devenish
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

The state of HIV/AIDS at the UFS
2010-05-11

“The University of the Free State (UFS) remains concerned about the threat of HIV/AIDS and will not become complacent in its efforts to combat HIV/AIDS by preventing new infections”, states Ms Estelle Heideman, Manager of the Kovsies HIV/AIDS Centre at the UFS.

She was responding to the results of a study that was done at Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) in 2008. The survey was initiated by Higher Education AIDS (HEAIDS) to establish the knowledge, attitudes, behaviours and practices (KABP) related to HIV and AIDS and to measure the HIV prevalence levels among staff and students. The primary aim of this research was to develop estimates for the sector.

The study populations consisted of students and employees from 21 HEIs in South Africa where contact teaching occurs. For the purpose of the cross-sectional study an ‘anonymous HIV survey with informed consent’ was used. The study comprised an HIV prevalence study, KABP survey, a qualitative study, and a risk assessment.

Each HEI was stratified by campus and faculty, whereupon clusters of students and staff were randomly selected. Self-administered questionnaires were used to obtain demographic, socio-economic and behavioural data. The HIV status of participants was determined by laboratory testing of dry blood spots obtained by finger pricks. The qualitative study consisted of focus group discussions and key informant interviews at each HEI.

Ethical approval was provided by the UFS Ethics Committee. Participation in all research was voluntary and written informed consent was obtained from all participants. Fieldwork for the study was conducted between September 2008 and February 2009.

A total of 1 004 people participated at the UFS, including the Main and the Qwaqwa campuses, comprising 659 students, 85 academic staff and 256 administration/service staff. The overall response rate was 75,6%.

The main findings of the study were:

HIV prevalence among students was 3,5%, 0% among academics, 1,3% among administrative staff, and 12,4% among service staff. “This might not be a true reflection of the actual prevalence of HIV at the UFS, as the sample was relatively small,” said Heideman. However, she went on to say that if we really want to show our commitment towards fighting this disease at our institution a number of problem areas should be addressed:

  • Around half of all students under the age of 20 have had sex before and this increased to almost three-quarters of students older than 20.

     
  • The majority of staff and a third of students had ever been tested for HIV.

     
  • More than 50% of students drink more than once per week and 44% of students reported being drunk in the past month. Qualitative data suggests that binge drinking over weekends and at campus ‘bashes’ is an area of concern.

Recommendations of the study:

  • Emphasis should be on increased knowledge of sexual risk behaviours, in particular those involving a high turnover of sexual partners and multiple sexual partnerships. Among students, emphasis should further be placed on staying HIV negative throughout university study.

     
  • The distribution of condoms on all campuses should be expanded, systematised and monitored. If resistance is encountered, attempts should be made to engage and educate dissenting institutional members about the importance of condom use in HIV prevention.

     
  • The relationship between alcohol misuse and pregnancy, sexually transmitted infections (STIs), HIV and AIDS needs to be made known, and there should be a drive to curb high levels of student drinking, promote non-alcohol oriented forms of recreation, and improve regulation of alcohol consumption at university-sponsored “bashes”.

     
  • There is need to reach out to students and staff who have undergone HIV testing and who know their HIV status, but do not access or benefit from support services. Because many HIV-positive students and staff are not receiving any kind of support, resources should be directed towards the development of HIV care services, including support groups.

Says Heideman, “If we really want to prove that we are serious about an HIV/AIDS-free campus, these results are a good starting point. It definitely provides us with a strong basis from which to work.” Since the study was done in 2008 the UFS has committed itself to a more comprehensive response to HIV/AIDS. The current proposed ‘HIV/AIDS Institutional response and strategic plan’, builds and expands on work that has been done before, the lessons learned from previous interventions, and a thorough study of good practices at other universities.

Media Release
Issued by: Mangaliso Radebe
Assistant Director: Media Liaison
Tel: 051 401 2828
Cell: 078 460 3320
E-mail: radebemt@ufs.ac.za  
10 May 2010

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