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

UFS Dean scoops prestigious award for analysis of book of Malachi
2017-05-15

Description: Prof Fanie Snyman book Tags: Prof Fanie Snyman book

Willem Louw, Chairperson of the UFS Council;
Dr Khotso Mokhele , Chancellor of the UFS,
Eleanor van der Westhuizen, from the Directorate
of Research Development; Prof Francis Petersen,
UFS Vice-Chancellor and Rector; Prof Fanie Snyman,
Dean of the Faculty of Theology; and
Prof Corli Witthuhn, Vice-Rector: Research.
Photo: Johan Roux

The most sought-after award at the UFS, the annual Book Prize for Distinguished Scholarship, was recently won by Prof Fanie Snyman, Dean of the Faculty of Theology and Religion. His book, Malachi, which is about the last book of the Old Testament, has received acknowledgement through this award. He is the third academic to be awarded this prize. The book was published in English by Peeters Publishers in Belgium as part of the ”Historical Commentary on the Old Testament” series with a view to an international audience, and can be used by theology scholars and academics.

Labour of love over many years
Prof Snyman has a long history with the Bible book of Malachi. Since his student years, this book in the so-called ‘Minor Prophets’ of the Old Testament had a special charm for him. In fact, Prof Snyman has produced several publications on this concise book of 55 verses over the years. Furthermore, his doctoral thesis, as well as several papers delivered at congresses, also had this book as the theme. It took Prof Snyman about a decade to write the book.

What lies ahead for him in the future? “I am closing the book Malachi for the time being,” says Prof Snyman. “However, my research on the ‘Minor Prophets’ will continue. As a result of Malachi, InterVarsity Press in Cambridge contacted me for the writing of a book in another international commentary series, this time on the books Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah.” Prof Snyman will use his prize money of R75 000 towards this goal.

Book prize a surprise
“I can sincerely say that I did not expect the award at all. I did not know which other excellent research was submitted and thought that research from another discipline might do better. Therefore, I was completely surprised when my book was announced as the winner, and it left me speechless at the moment!” says a modest Prof Snyman.

He adds: “I am sincerely grateful for this award, but I must also thank the university. I would like to express my appreciation for the academic milieu, financial support, as well as overseas travel opportunities that have enabled me to complete the book and achieve this award.”
 
Book review by international expert
Prof Rainer Kessler, a world-renowned expert on the Bible book of Malachi, said in a review of Malachi: “The commentary on Malachi in the renowned Historical Commentary on the Old Testament series is the fruit of decades of studies on the book. [It] is full of respect towards the text. [Prof] Snyman is very cautious in his judgements and decisions. He rather presents different possibilities than uttering one-sided positions. [Finally, he] treats others always in a very fair manner. He presents their opinions as objectively as possible, especially when he does not agree. This commentary is a new and very useful tool for the study on the often underestimated last book of the Old Testament prophets.”

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