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

Institute for Reconciliation and Social Justice: cultivating humanity
2014-12-15

Directors of university centres focusing on Social Justice, Diversity and Transformation met at the UFS to establish the Directors' Forum. The forum discussed the state of higher education transformation in South Africa  The forum consists of (from the left) Mr Allan Zinn from the The Centre for the Advancement of Non-racialism and Democracy at the Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University, Profs Melissa Steyn from Wits University's Centre for Diversity Studies,  Andre Keet Director of the The Institute for Reconciliation and Social Justice at the University of the Free State; Rozena Maart  from The Centre for Critical Research on Race and Identity  at the University of KwaZulu Natal and Mr JC van der Merwe, researcher at the UFS Institute for Reconciliation and Social Justice
Photo: O'Ryan Heideman

The Institute for Reconciliation and Social Justice at the University of the Free State (UFS) provides a critical space that brings different voices, ideas and practices together to advance the Human and Academic Projects of the university. Students, staff and community members meet here to find ways to engage with diverse views, realities and aspirations.

“We cultivate humanity so that reconciliation and social justice can be expressed in our everyday life and we work against disrespect and inequalities on our campuses and in our society,” says Prof André Keet, Director of the Institute for Reconciliation and Social Justice.

“Through our various critical conversations, public lectures, seminars and colloquia, fresh understandings and ideas come to the fore and new inclusive ways of doing life in a local and global multicultural society are invented,” Prof Keet says. A host of international experts formed part of the institute’s events during 2014.

Dr Charles Alexander (University of California), Prof Halleh Ghorashi (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam), Prof Alex Hinton (Rutgers University), Dr Shirley Anne Tate (University of Leeds) and Prof Susan Spearey (Brock University) were but a few of the international experts contributing to the work of the institute during the last year.

“We play key roles in transformation debates within Higher Education South Africa (HESA) and ministerial processes,” Prof Keet says. “We promote, protect and monitor human rights across our campuses and are frequently requested to support the work of the South African Human Rights Commission and to provide advice to other state agencies.”

The institute prides itself on their leading-edge research on social cohesion, reconciliation, human rights and higher education transformation. In addition, staff of the institute teaches, on invitation, at various faculties, as well as at other national and international universities.

To further bolster their impact, the institute is launching three master’s and doctoral postgraduate programmes in January 2015.

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