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

Centre for Human Rights at UFS geared to make impact in the region
2017-03-02

Description: Centre for Human Rights  Tags: Centre for Human Rights

SAHRC situated in the Mabaleng building,
Bloemfontein Campus
Photo: Hannes Pieterse

After approval by the Rectorate, Senate and Council of the University of the Free State (UFS), the Free State Centre for Human Rights (FSCHR) began operations on 1 January 2016 on the Bloemfontein Campus, under the leadership of Prof Leon Wessels, founding member of the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) as the Acting Director of the centre.

Human rights remain, undoubtedly, the dominant moral and political language of our times and thus demands multi-layered scholarly engagement as it influences national and international relations, and sets standards for political and democratic practice.

Establishment of centre fulfilment of court order
Top on the centre’s agenda will be to resolve the debate with the SAHRC relating to the February 2011 post-Reitz agreement of the UFS, which was subsequently made an order of the Equality Court. This order compelled the UFS to establish such a centre. The FSCHR presents new opportunities for cooperation between the FSCHR, the SAHRC and other stakeholders to the benefit of the UFS and the broader community.

Three divisions of the centre to achieve its mandate
The centre consists of three inter-related divisions with the potential to stimulate critical scholarship in the field of human rights through its postgraduate and research division. This is reflected in the centre’s mission to deepen the study of human rights and further its praxes by developing novel methodologies in which traditional human rights issues can be complemented by interdisciplinary and multi-disciplinary approaches.

The Advocacy division of the centre will promote human rights among UFS staff and students, and the surrounding community. The aim is to establish a vibrant human rights culture in and across all campuses in which rights of all are respected and protected.

The Legal Services division will provide trustworthy legal services to individuals and groups whose fundamental rights have been abused, to improve the professional capacity of paralegals, students, counsellors, social workers, candidate attorneys and attorneys, equipping them to deal with cases of infringement of constitutional and human rights and to increase access to justice to rural and indigent communities in the Free State.

Centre key in positioning UFS as a regional leader in human rights issues
The centre, with its inter- and multi-disciplinary approach, has the potential to become one of the flagship projects of the UFS, and will strengthen both the Academic and Human Projects. A UFS human rights centre not only makes sound scholarly and practical sense, it also has limitless symbolic value. The location of one of UFS’s campuses within the city of Bloemfontein (the judicial capital of South Africa) and having partnered with the National University of Lesotho (NUL), is historically and geographically significant. This has a great impact on the UFS, the Free State province as a whole, and the Kingdom of Lesotho.  

The FSCHR will be officially launched on 14 March 2017 with Professor Bongani Majola, newly elected chairperson of the SAHRC, as guest speaker.

For further information on the work of the centre, please contact FSCHR@ufs.ac.za / +27 51 401 7216.

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