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

Reaction by the Rector of the UFS after a meeting with student leaders
2008-02-25

Reaction by the Rector and Vice-Chancellor of the UFS, Prof. Frederick Fourie, on the agreement reached at a meeting with student leaders held on Friday, 22 February 2008

Note: This is meant to be used together with the full joint statement that was issued by the UFS management and student leaders on 22 February 2008.

The memorandum of the primes of the University of the Free State’s (UFS) residences was handed to top management on Wednesday, 20 February 2008. In the memorandum they asked for a meeting with the UFS management by Friday, 22 February 2008. Such a meeting was arranged and took place.

The UFS top management, all the residence primes as well as the house committee member for first years, the executive of the Main Campus Student Representative Council (SRC) and residence heads were present.

In contrast to what is suggested in the Volksblad report of Saturday, the discussion went off very well. There was no consternation or shouting or “emotions that ran high”. It was a civilised, decent meeting as it should be at a good university. Of course, now and again individuals spoke out strongly and very enthusiastically, but it was all decent and orderly. The contribution of the primes was insightful and well formulated.

Because the top management and I wanted to listen very carefully what the problems and frustrations were, we spent nearly five hours in the meeting. The issues in the memorandum were discussed one by one. In some cases I could take a decision immediately and finalise the matter, in other cases, the management provided information that could largely finalise a matter. A number of other matters must be investigated further.

The management undertook to respond comprehensively and in writing to all the issues raised in the memorandum by Monday, 25 February 2008. This will be handed to the primes but will not be handed to the media beforehand.
It is obvious that there are matters at the university that can be better managed and that there are problems with communication within the Student Affairs division. A major change such as the new policy on diversity places huge demands on management and the administration, and problems were to be expected. However, we understand the frustration of the students in residences.

On the other hand, students don’t always make matters easier. The strong opposition of white student leaders last year, and their unwillingness to co-operate in preparation for 2008 is well known. This year it is going better. But often student leaders take positions that are very inflexible. They also see no room for adapting old habits and simply want their own way. Their contributions are then full of statements such as “It cannot be done”. This delays measures such as the full implementation of expert interpreting services, which, for the management, is a very important measure (and which is functioning very well in certain residences). Communication from student leaders to management is also not always what it should be.

At the end of the meeting student leaders and management reached an important agreement and issued a joint statement in which they committed themselves to the integration process and to good co-operation and communication. This was an important step which is a sign of rebuilding trust. Naturally everyone will still have to work hard to build on this and to strengthen mutual trust.

The course and outcome of Friday’s discussions, as requested by the student leaders, show that issues can be addressed and resolved by means of us talking to one another. This is why it is so sad that primes and house committee members went on strike on Wednesday already and stayed in tents in front of the Main Building – leaving their residences without its leadership. This created an opening for what appears to have been well planned and co-ordinated acts of vandalism by inhabitants of residences on the campus on Wednesday.

Such vandalism is unacceptable and no one can justify it.

Fortunately, order could be restored quickly during the night and all academic activities could resume without any disruption on Thursday and Friday.

FCvN Fourie

Media Release
Issued by: Lacea Loader
Assistant Director: Media Liaison
Tel: 051 401 2584
Cell: 083 645 2454
E-mail: loaderl.stg@ufs.ac.za   
24 February 2008

 

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