Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
01 February 2021 | Story Prof Felicity Burt, Prof Dominique Goedhals & Dr Sabeehah Vawda | Photo istock

Opinion article by Prof Felicity Burt, Prof Dominique Goedhals, and Dr Sabeehah Vawda, Division of Virology, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Free State and National Health Laboratory Service, Bloemfontein. 

As we optimistically embarked on a new year with hopes of seeing an end to the global pandemic, masks, and social restrictions, our news channels were consumed with stories about virus variants and vaccine roll-out. What do these variants mean and will the vaccines protect against the changes that have emerged in the virus and save us from the new normal?

The news of a ‘mutated’ virus most likely conjures movie-like images of an invisible, indestructible enemy causing massive disruption. The reality is fortunately much less dramatic, as these changes are actually expected. Just to reiterate, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has an RNA genome that codes for all the proteins which the virus produces. The exact details of how the virus replicates and produces new progeny, although of interest, are beyond the scope of this article. It is sufficient at this point to merely acknowledge that, during replication, the mechanism employed by viruses with an RNA genome allows for the introduction of mutations in the genes that code for the viral proteins. This is expected to occur and there is substantial evidence that the SARS-CoV-2 viral genes have evolved and adapted globally. Some mutations are silent, in other words, they do not change the viral proteins. However, in some instances the changes can affect the proteins encoded by the virus. If these changes occur in regions of the protein responsible for binding to the cell receptors that facilitate entry of the virus into the cell, or in regions of the protein that induce an immune response, the virus may show new characteristics, such as more successful transmission or escape from an existing immune response. 

Second wave of infections

South Africa and the United Kingdom are probably the two countries globally that have methodically sequenced the largest number of SARS-CoV-2 viruses isolated from patients. This technique allows the determination of the complete genome of each isolate and subsequent comparison, using bioinformatic software specifically designed to compare and identify changes and mutations in the nucleotide sequences. As we are all now aware, scientists in these two countries have identified virus variants with an accumulation of mutations and deletions occurring in the gene that encodes for the viral spike protein associated with binding to cell receptors and inducing protective immune responses. These variants have now become the predominant lineages circulating within local communities. 

In December 2020, scientists in South Africa revealed the presence of a variant of concern (VOC), now referred to as 501Y.V2. Sequence data confirmed that this variant initially emerged in October 2020, and by January 2021 it was present in multiple provinces in the country and is considered to be responsible for a significant number of cases occurring in the second wave of infections in the country. A second VOC reported by scientists in the United Kingdom in December 2020, (202012/01) likely emerged during September 2020. A third VOC has been reported from Brazil and is simply known as variant P1. To date, variant 501Y.V2 has been reported from at least 23 countries. VOC 202012/01 has been reported in at least 60 countries, and although the cases were initially associated with travellers, there is an increasing number of clusters of cases occurring in people with no history of travel. The United States, Israel, and India currently have the highest number of cases associated with this variant outside of the UK, keeping in mind that at the rate at which the pandemic unfolds, these statistics quickly become outdated. In contrast, variant P1 has only been reported from Brazil, and outside of Brazil it has been associated with travellers in a small number of countries. 

Immune responses

Changes in viral proteins may or may not influence certain characteristics of a viral infection. Current epidemiological data and modelling have all suggested that the VOC circulating in South Africa and the UK are more transmissible than previous lineages of the SARS-CoV-2. Despite the increased transmissibility, to date the severity of illness and the proportion of severe disease in different age groups appear to be unaffected by the changes in the protein. The increased transmissibility has increased the burden on the public and private health systems, emphasising the importance of rolling out a vaccine to healthcare workers and persons at increased risk of severe illness. 

The changes in the spike protein responsible for inducing immune responses have sparked research studies to determine whether the vaccines will be able to protect against the new variants.  It must be remembered that there are two arms to the immune response with complex interactions, and that natural protection will likely be a combination of responses. However, the presence of antibodies that neutralise the virus, in other words, block it from entering cells, and the ability of these neutralising antibodies to block new variants from entering the cells, can be investigated in the laboratory. Although the exact responses required for protection are not fully understood and will require studies that take more time to complete, an indication of neutralising capacity provides some information with regard to the potential efficacy of the vaccine against variants. What we currently know from laboratory research is that there is a reduction in the ability of antibody from people previously infected during the first wave of cases to neutralise the new variant circulating in South Africa. This reduction varied among the cohort of samples tested, but overall, there was a weaker neutralising capability. Similar results were demonstrated using pseudoviruses representing the variant virus. Studies looking at antibodies in people who have been vaccinated show similar reductions in neutralisation. The answer is unfortunately not clear at this stage, with many pieces of the puzzle still to be determined. The reduced capacity to neutralise in a laboratory was not what we wanted to hear, but it must be remembered that vaccines induce a broad immune response and not only neutralise antibody, and hence there are other components to the immune response that will likely contribute to protection. Nonetheless, even a reduced immune response will contribute towards vaccine-induced herd immunity and saving lives by preventing severe disease. 

Vaccine trials

In addition to the vaccines currently in use, results were released from clinical trials using vaccines from Novavax and Johnson & Johnson. Although a lower efficacy was shown among the South African population compared to results obtained in the UK, the efficacy was still in the region of 57% to 60%, which is certainly encouraging in view of the new variant circulating. The differences observed illustrate the importance of conducting vaccine trials in local populations. An efficacy of 60% will still contribute towards herd immunity and the prevention of severe disease, emphasising the importance of a rapid roll-out and hopefully a high uptake of the vaccine. Vaccination will not only protect the vaccinee but should contribute to minimising the risk of further variants emerging. 

The roll-out of vaccine, further research on immune responses in vaccinated communities, epidemiological data, and sequence data will all contribute towards monitoring the evolution of the outbreak. Flu vaccines are modified annually and if the COVID-19 vaccine needs to be modified, manufacturers have the capability to do this, and some have already started this process. 

Additional waves of infection are predicted to occur until herd immunity can be achieved. Whether the current variants will be responsible for the next wave is not possible to predict, and continued research analysing the gene sequences of future isolates will play an important role in determining how the virus is evolving. 

In the interim, until we have sufficient vaccine-induced herd immunity to provide protection, non-pharmaceutical interventions and human behaviour will continue to play the important role of minimising new infections. To quote CS Lewis: “You can’t go back and change the beginning, but you can start where you are and change the ending.”

 

News Archive

CR Swart Memorial Lecture: Mr Cecil le Fleur
2006-08-08

Khoe and San call for government to speed up policy dialogue with indigenous communities  

 Mr Cecil le Fleur, leader of the National Khoe-San Consultative Conference and member of the executive management of the National Khoe-San Council, has called for a national policy on indigenous peoples to protect the human rights and special needs of indigenous people in South Africa.

 Mr Le Fleur delivered the 38th CR Swart Memorial Lecture on the Khoe and San at the University of the Free State (UFS).  He commended the UFS for its serious approach to the Khoe and San and for initiating initiatives such as a research project on the Griqua in which various aspects linked to language, -culture, -history, - leadership, their role in the South African community (past and present) and the conservation of their historical cultural heritages will be covered.   

 “The policy dialogue with indigenous communities initiated by government in 1999 and supported by the International Labour Organisation (ILO), has been exceedingly slow, owing to political and bureaucratic problems,” said Mr Le Fleur.

 According to Mr Le Fleur the slow pace is also impacting negatively on the United Nations’ efforts to expand the international standards and mechanisms for human rights so as to include the special needs of indigenous peoples.

 “The successful adoption of a South African policy would probably have a major impact on the human rights culture of Africa and, more specifically, on the UN system,” he said.

 “South Africa has a powerful moral authority internationally and is willing to use this authority in multilateral forums. At this stage, however, South Africa’s Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) may not take an official position on UN instruments and declarations pertaining to indigenous issues, until the Cabinet has resolved its own domestic policy position,” he said. 

 According to Mr le Fleur it therefore came as a great surprise when the DFA brought out a positive vote in the UN for the adoption of the "Draft Declaration on the Rights of indigenous Peoples" in June this year, even before the completion of the policy process. 

 Policy consolidation in South Africa is the primary key to creating a new policy climate in Africa in order to protect the rights of indigenous peoples.  “The existing constitution of the Republic of South Africa is one of the most liberal on the continent, and embraces the concept of redress of past discrimination.  It already includes a clause (Section 6) making provision for the protection of language rights for Khoe and San peoples - the fist peoples of southern Africa,” he said. 

 “If South Africa can effectively integrate this ‘third generation’ of collective rights within an existing democratic constitution, this will send a clear message to Africa and the world that indigenous rights are a necessary component of human and civil rights in modern democracies,” he said.

 Mr Le Fleur proposed an institutional framework based on set principles that would satisfy the needs and aspirations of the Griqua and other first indigenous peoples in South Africa.  “The proposed framework was based on the notion of vulnerability as a result of colonialism and apartheid, which stripped us of our indigenous identity, cultural identity and pride as people.  This injustice can hardly be addressed within the existing mechanisms provided by the current text of the Constitution,” he said.

 Mr Le Fleur also proposed that the principles of unique first-nation status, as recognised in international law, should be applied in the construction of the framework of the constitutional accommodation for the Khoe and San. 

 Mr Le Fleur further proposed that the Khoe and San’s indigenous status in constitutional terms must be separate from the constitutional acknowledgement of their status as a cultural community, as envisaged in sections 185 and 186 of the Constitution of 1996.

 According to Mr Le Fleur, the suggested mechanism should make provision for structures such as:

  •  A statutory representative council for First Indigenous Peoples of South Africa at a national level;
  • a separate Joint Standing Committee on Indigenous and Traditional Affairs, in both the National Assembly and the National Council of Provinces on which the Khoe and San can be represented;
  • a representative structure for the Khoe and San in the legislature of each relevant province; and
  • ex officio membership in the relevant structures of local government.

Media release
Issued by: Lacea Loader
Media Representative
Tel:   (051) 401-2584
Cell:  083 645 2454
E-mail:  loaderl.stg@mail.uovs.ac.za 
24 August 2006


- Full lecture
- Photo gallery
 

 

 

 

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