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

The failure of the law
2004-06-04

 

Written by Lacea Loader

- Call for the protection of consumers’ and tax payers rights against corporate companies

An expert in commercial law has called for reforms to the Companies Act to protect the rights of consumers and investors.

“Consumers and tax payers are lulled into thinking the law protects them when it definitely does not,” said Prof Dines Gihwala this week during his inaugural lecture at the University of the Free State’s (UFS).

Prof Gihwala, vice-chairperson of the UFS Council, was inaugurated as extraordinary professor in commercial law at the UFS’s Faculty of Law.

He said that consumers, tax payers and shareholders think they can look to the law for an effective curb on the enormous power for ill that big business wields.

“Once the public is involved, the activities of big business must be controlled and regulated. It is the responsibility of the law to oversee and supervise such control and regulation,” said Prof Gihwala.

He said that, when undesirable consequences occur despite laws enacted specifically to prevent such results, it must be fair to suggest that the law has failed.

“The actual perpetrators of the undesirable behaviour seldom pay for it in any sense, not even when criminal conduct is involved. If directors of companies are criminally charged and convicted, the penalty is invariably a fine imposed on the company. So, ironically, it is the money of tax payers that is spent on investigating criminal conduct, formulating charges and ultimately prosecuting the culprits involved in corporate malpractice,” said Prof Gihwala.

According to Prof Gihwala the law continuously fails to hold companies meaningfully accountable to good and honest business values.

“Insider trading is a crime and, although legislation was introduced in 1998 to curb it, not a single successful criminal prosecution has taken place. While the law appears to be offering the public protection against unacceptable business behaviour, it does no such thing – the law cannot act as a deterrent if it is inadequate or not being enforced,” he said.

The government believed it was important to facilitate access to the country’s economic resources by those who had been denied it in the past. The Broad Based Economic Empowerment Act of 2003 (BBEE), is legislation to do just that. “We should be asking ourselves whether it is really possible for an individual, handicapped by the inequities of the past, to compete in the real business world even though the BBEE Act is now part of the law?,” said Prof Gihwala.

Prof Gihwala said that judges prefer to follow precedent instead of taking bold initiative. “Following precedent is safe at a personal level. To do so will elicit no outcry of disapproval and one’s professional reputation is protected. The law needs to evolve and it is the responsibility of the judiciary to see that it happens in an orderly fashion. Courts often take the easy way out, and when the opportunity to be bold and creative presents itself, it is ignored,” he said.

“Perhaps we are expecting too much from the courts. If changes are to be made to the level of protection to the investing public by the law, Parliament must play its proper role. It is desirable for Parliament to be proactive. Those tasked with the responsibility of rewriting our Companies Act should be bold and imaginative. They should remove once and for all those parts of our common law which frustrate the ideals of our Constitution, and in particular those which conflict with the principles of the BBEE Act,” said Prof Gihwala.

According to Prof Gihwala, the following reforms are necessary:

• establishing a unit that is part of the office of the Registrar of Companies to bolster a whole inspectorate in regard to companies’ affairs;
• companies who are liable to pay a fine or fines, should have the right to take action to recover that fine from those responsible for the conduct;
• and serious transgression of the law should allow for imprisonment only – there should be no room for the payment of fines.
 

Prof Gihwala ended the lecture by saying: “If the opportunity to re-work the Companies Act is not grabbed with both hands, we will witness yet another failure in the law. Even more people will come to believe that the law is stupid and that it has made fools of them. And that would be the worst possible news in our developing democracy, where we are struggling to ensure that the Rule of Law prevails and that every one of us has respect for the law”.

 

 

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