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

Middle East activists speak about peace on the Bloemfontein Campus
2012-03-15

 

Bassem Eid (left) and Benjamin Pogrund discuss the situation in the Middle East.
Photo: Johan Roux
15 March 2012

Peace is a big word in the Middle East, particularly amongst Israelis and Palestinians. After years of conflict, people yearn for peace; they want an end to the killings and the uncertainty. The problem is that both sides are actively doing things that undermine the prospect of peace. There is also double talk, lies and evasion with each side pointing fingers. This was the word from Benjamin Pogrund, an Israeli peace activist, addressing staff and students on the Bloemfontein Campus of the University of the Free State. He and fellow peace activist Bassem Eid, a Palestinian, visited the campus to speak about the situation in the Middle East.

Both men agreed that peace efforts were hindered by the Israeli and the Palestinian leaders. According to Pogrund, neither the Palestinians, nor the Israelis are leading the way in accepting that the conflict must end.
 
“Both Israeli and Palestinian leaders say let us get together with no pre-conditions. Then the Israeli leaders say, Jerusalem we cannot share, that is not for negotiation. And, they say to the Palestinians you must recognise Israel as a Jewish state. So, what they say is unless you agree to these pre-conditions there can be no talks without pre-conditions.
 
“And the Palestinians in turn say the settlement construction must cease immediately, and unless that happened, there is no point in meeting. And they say we will never acknowledge you as a Jewish state so do not even bother talking about it. And we insist on the right of return of Palestinian refugees. So they also say unless you acknowledge these pre-conditions there is no point in meeting with our pre-conditions. So as you can gather each side blames the other side, each side points the finger and says you are responsible for the lack of progress.”
 
Pogrund said both the Israelis and the Palestinians could demand legitimacy in that part of the world.
 
“Both Jewish and Arabs can say we have history on our side. We have religion on our side, culture.”
 
To compare Israel to Apartheid South Africa is wrong, he said.
 
“It is an occupation, it is repression, but it is not Apartheid.”
 
Eid, who is the director of the Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group, said the Palestinians were close to having a complete independent Palestinian state from 1994 to 1999.
 
“But in one rocket former Israeli Prime minister Ariel Sharon destroyed it.”
 
He said Israel’s disengagement from the Gaza Strip in 2005 did not bring political unity.
 
“We, the Palestinians, were supposed to start building the infrastructure of the Gaza Strip but unfortunately Hamas started dancing on that Israeli disengagement and considered it as their own success because of their military resistance against the occupation.” He also said Hamas is satisfied with its hold in the Gaza Strip and Fatah is also very satisfied with its hold in the West Bank. According to Eid, it is convenient for the Israelis that the Palestinians are separated.

 

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