After turning down a previous bid, Mediclinic has agreed to a £3.7 billion buyout by a consortium consisting of investment group Remgro Limited and Mediterranean Shipping Company (MSC).
The buyout will give Remgro and MSC, through a jointly owned subsidiary, a 50/50 stake in the healthcare company.
The offer still has to be cleared by 75% of Mediclinic’s shareholders (Remgro is already a shareholder), but according to the The Daily Maverick, Mediclinic’s CFO, Gert Hattingh, the company’s directors consider the terms of the sale to be fair and reasonable. In addition, regulatory approval must be granted in South Africa, Namibia, Switzerland and Cyprus for the acquisition to proceed.
The current bid is offering 504 pence per share, a 35% increase on the first rejected offer, according to MoneyWeb. With the £3.7 billion buyout, Mediclinic has an implied enterprise value of roughly £6.1 billion.
Mediclinic operates 74 hospitals as of March this year, with 50 hospitals in Southern Africa (three of which are in Namibia), 17 hospitals in Switzerland, seven in the UAE and a 200-bed hospital due to open in Saudi Arabia.
The 72-year-old Johann Rupert who leads Remgro and has a 7% ownership, is South Africa’s richest person, with a personal fortune of $8.8bn, according to the most recent estimate by Forbes.
Commenting on the acquisition, Dame Inga Beale, Chair of Mediclinic, said: “The recommended offer represents a near-term value realisation for Mediclinic shareholders at an attractive premium.
“Over 39 years, Mediclinic has developed into the leading international healthcare services group it is today. During this time, Remgro has remained a supportive long-term shareholder. Together with SAS, the Consortium’s resources will put Mediclinic in a strong position to continue to serve patients through our broad range of high-quality healthcare services.”
Professor Resia Pretorius sounds rushed when Spotlight first tracks her down by phone at Heathrow Airport outside London. She is about to board a plane to South Africa after attending a conference, meetings, and symposia in the United Kingdom, all with the purpose of unravelling the complexity of long COVID and how to treat it.
There is no global consensus among researchers and clinicians on a definition for long COVID, there is no adequate diagnostic test for the debilitating condition, and the causes of patients progressing to long COVID are, at this stage, theoretical.
However, Pretorius who heads the Department of Physiological Science at the University of Stellenbosch remains upbeat. Her research group is the first to have reported evidence of inflammatory microclots in blood samples from individuals with long COVID, potentially solving an important piece of the long COVID puzzle.
She says scientific collaboration is intensifying to find answers to long COVID which affects 43% or 100 million people globally post-infection, according to a meta-analysis and systematic review.
Later speaking from Stellenbosch, Pretorius describes herself as a “lab person” who has been trying to find the cause of long COVID since 2020. “I have always been passionate about research. Now, I am working with clinicians and researchers in the UK, the USA, and other parts of the world. I am too worried to miss anything so I am at all of these meetings. There are 40 to 50 researchers globally who talk to each other regularly. We are going to crack this I know. We just have to.”
Causes of long COVID
As explained in a recent article in the journal Science, there are three leading theories scientists are pursuing in an attempt to decipher the effects of post-COVID-19 infection – which leads to an array of symptoms, including shortness of breath, fatigue, headaches, palpitations, and impairments in mental health and cognition or brain fog.
One theory is that SARS-CoV-2 stubbornly persists in the body, even after the acute infection passes. Studies have shown that the virus lingers in a wide range of body sites, especially in the nerves and other tissues.
Another theory based on blood samples from COVID-19 patients reveals an immune system in disarray even eight months after first testing positive. The body’s cells do not appear to recover.
Images of micro clots as seen under an electron microscope. PHOTO: Supplied
The third, an area in which Pretorius has distinguished herself internationally, is that COVID-19 is not only a lung disease but significantly affects the vascular (blood flow) and coagulation (blood clotting) systems of the body.
A recent study published in the Cardiovascular Diabetology journal, conducted by Pretorius and colleagues, found that there is significant microclot formation in the blood of both acute COVID-19 and long COVID patients. A microclot is a blood clot that can only be seen through a microscope.
Pretorius explains that in a healthy person clots may form, for example, when you cut yourself. The main clotting protein is a molecule called fibrinogen. “When you’re healthy, it’s in solution. And then when you cut yourself, collagen is exposed, and a little gel called fibrin prevents you from bleeding out. In healthy individuals, the clots are then broken down by a process called fibrinolysis.
Blood samples from patients with long COVID have revealed high levels of various inflammatory molecules trapped in the microclots including fibrinogen and Alpha-2 antiplasmin – a molecule that prevents the breakdown of microclots.
The persistent blood clots essentially result in cells not getting enough oxygen in the tissues to sustain bodily functions. This, Pretorius says, may be central to numerous debilitating symptoms.
In healthy individuals, the body’s plasmin-antiplasmin system maintains a fine balance between blood clotting to prevent blood loss after an injury and fibrinolysis which prevents blood clots from forming.
With high levels of alpha(2)-antiplasmin in the blood of acute COVID-19 patients and individuals suffering from long COVID, the body’s ability to break down the clots is significantly undermined. The blood circulation becomes clogged up.
Microclots are generally not found in people who do not have long COVID. Pretorius says you can find them in some other conditions, such as diabetes, “but the difference is the number and the extreme presence of the clots with long COVID, that’s what’s making the difference,” she says.
Insoluble clots
Another difference is that the clots in long COVID are insoluble. When Pretorius tried to dissolve these clots using an enzyme called trypsin in her laboratory, they would not dissolve. They are resistant to fibrinolysis.
Initially, Pretorius was looking at acute COVID-19 infection. We received blood samples from ICU patients and we made blood smears and looked at them under a scanning electron microscope that can enlarge a sample hundreds of thousands of times. We then added a fluorescent dye or marker called Thioflavin T which lights up when there are misfolded proteins. This happens when, for example, the spike protein binds to the soluble fibrinogen molecule making it insoluble.
The SARS-CoV-2 virus is known to bind to ACE2 receptors and TMPRSS receptors which are found on platelets (blood cells that help with clotting). They are also found on the endothelium (the inner-most lining of the blood vessels). By binding to the platelets and the endothelium, the virus sets off a torrent of clotting causing vascular damage.
Pretorius says in early 2021, “I got a report from Harvard collaborators and others to say that patients do not fully recover post-infection and they referred to this as long COVID.
“I said let’s get the samples. We looked at the blood samples and lo and behold we found the clots and they were fully persistent. I was not surprised to find the clots in long COVID because I knew with acute COVID many people were dying because of clots in the lungs and shortness of breath. But, I did not know the extent to which they were present in long COVID.”
“When we did proteomics analysis on the sample, when we looked at the different molecules in the blood, I could not dissolve the sample with typical enzymes. I used a massively abrasive enzyme called Trypsin which dissolves any possible protein. But it could not dissolve these cells. The resilience of these clots, that they simply don’t get dissolved, surprised me,” Pretorius says.
Pretorius recalls that in 2020, several South African clinicians alerted others to COVID-19 not being a typical viral pneumonia but suggested it was also a vascular disease. “At that stage, it was massively controversial with many dismissing this idea saying it’s a virus that affects the lungs and that’s it,” she says.
Pretorius says this was despite papers published overseas in 2020 that concluded COVID-19 was also a vascular disease. “It was made controversial in South Africa but it is now widely accepted that COVID-19 also affects clotting as well as the body’s vasculature (network of blood vessels).”
Pretorius says, “Although the microclot is a theory, it encompasses all of the other suggested causes of long COVID because the spike protein itself can trigger microclots. We have submitted a paper, looking at many more blood samples, where we found inflammatory molecules trapped inside the blood clots which do not break down. We also found antibodies so the theories about immune abnormalities, persistent virus, and microclots are intertwined. All of these can cause organ damage. So if you look at it from a systems biology approach, all of these are valid.”
Many are told that their symptoms are possibly psychological, all in their head, and they are told to get some rest and to stop stressing. Meanwhile, the patients are very ill
Diagnostics
Pretorius says there are no general pathology tests readily available to diagnose people with long COVID.
“People that are desperately ill – bedridden or in wheelchairs – are often given generalised blood tests. They are told that their pathology test results are within normal to healthy ranges. Many are told that their symptoms are possibly psychological, all in their head, and they are told to get some rest and to stop stressing. Meanwhile, the patients are very ill,” she says.
Pretorius says the main reason the traditional laboratory tests do not pick up any of the inflammatory molecules is that they are trapped inside the insoluble microclots. A typical pathology test looks at the soluble content of the blood, so if the molecules are trapped they will be missed.
“We patented a long COVID test which is just a simple microscopy test that is a useable diagnostic method to see if microclots are present,” Pretorius says.
Microscopy methods are not readily available at pathology laboratories. However, Pretorius says, “We have crowd-funded and received funding from the Polybio Research Foundation in America to buy a flow cytometer for our blood lab to develop a flow cytometry method that can be used in the typical pathology labs. So we hope to have a diagnostic that will be readily available in a couple of months.”
Treatment
Pretorius says colleagues in the United Kingdom have already designed two randomised controlled trials to independently test both coagulation therapy (CLOTT-UK) and Apheresis (CLOTT-Apheresis trial ) in which microclots and inflammatory molecules are filtered out in a dialysis-type treatment. These trials will study whether anticoagulants and Apheresis give long-lasting relief of symptoms. These trials are being planned and researchers are waiting for ethics approval.
In addition, colleagues from the University of Sheffield Hallam and from the University of Manchester have independently set up microclot testing in their labs and they are planning to publish their UK cohort results soon. They are also correlating long COVID severity to microclot presence, says Pretorius.
“It’s been quite a ride. Seeing the devastation of long COVID, I realise why I decided not to be a clinician… handling and hearing all the issues is just so sad,” says Pretorius.
But, she remains determined to help “crack” long COVID.
Leading vaccinologist Professor Shabir Madhi received the Lifetime Award from South Africa’s prestigious ‘Science Oscars’ held by the National Science and Technology Foundation. He received the honour for his leadership in research on vaccines against life-threatening diseases in Africa and globally, and he has been at the cutting edge of research in this area since 1997.
As well as being the Dean of the Faculty of Health Sciences and Professor of Vaccinology at Wits, Prof Madhi is also the director of the South African Medical Research Council (SAMRC) Vaccine and Infectious Diseases Analytics Research Unit (Wits-VIDA); and is co-director of African Leadership in Vaccinology Expertise, Wits. During the COVID pandemic he became one of the most-cited expert by the media as the public looked to the healthcare sector for advice and guidance during this crisis.
A number of awards also went to those in the field of healthcare or who contributed to healthcare, an area especially marked by SA’s response to the COVID pandemic.
CEO of SA Health Products Regulatory Authority (SAHPRA), Dr Boitumelo Semete-Makokotlela, received the Management Award for successfully leading the authorisation of a number of COVID diagnostic tests, vaccines and therapies during the COVID.
The Network for Genomics Surveillance (NGS-SA) in SA received the Data for Research award for NGS-SA, which generated of genomic surveillance data of SARS-CoV-2 aimed at informing SA’s public health response to this virus. It was represnted by its co-founders, Dr Jinal Bhiman, Scientific Lead for Global Immunology and Immune Sequencing for Epidemic Response South Africa (GIISER-SA); and Professor Tulio de Oliveira, SU.
Other recipients in the field of healthcare included Dr Wynand Goosen, who received an Emerging Researcher aware for leadership of research in SA on the surveillance of zoonotic TB in domestic cattle and wild animals as potential infection sources in susceptible people in rural areas.
South African researchers have found that, compared to Omicron BA.1 and earlier infections, those caused by Omicron BA.4 and BA.5 do not have an increased risk of hospitalisation for severe disease or death.
The study, which appears online in the medRxiv server, aimed to compare clinical severity of Omicron BA.4/BA.5 infection with BA.1 and earlier variant infections among laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases in the Western Cape, South Africa, using timing of infection to infer the lineage/variant causing infection.
In their study, the researchers included public sector patients aged 20 years or older with laboratory-confirmed COVID between 1 and 21 May 2022 (for the BA.4/BA.5 wave) and equivalent prior wave periods. They compared the risk for death and severe hospitalisation/death (all within 21 days of diagnosis), adjusting for for demographics, comorbidities, admission pressure, vaccination and prior infection.
Comparing 3793 patients from the BA.4/BA.5 wave and 190 836 patients from previous waves the risk of severe hospitalisation or death was similar in the BA.4/BA.5 and BA.1 waves (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.12). Both Omicron waves had a lower risk of severe outcomes than previous waves. They also found that both prior infection (aHR 0.29) and vaccination (aHR 0.17; 0.40 for boosted vs no vaccine) were protective.
Overall, the researchers found that COVID disease severity was similar for the BA.4/BA.5 and BA.1 periods in the context of growing immunity against SARS-CoV-2 due to prior infection and vaccination, which were both strongly protective.
In the past year, the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) has delivered several arbitration awards which have upheld the dismissals of employees who refused to get vaccinated against COVID.
But a recent award has created some confusion about whether this is still allowed and under what circumstances.
On 22 June, CCMA Commissioner Richard Byrne found that it was unfair and unconstitutional for Baroque Medical, which supplies and sells medical equipment, to retrench Kgomotso Tshatshu for refusing to get a Covid vaccination. The company was ordered to pay her 12 months’ salary as compensation (the maximum allowed).
But this contradicts an earlier CCMA award by Commissioner Piet van Staden, delivered in May, who found that Baroque Medical was within its rights to retrench another employee, Cecilia Bessick, who had also refused to get a COVID vaccine.
These conflicting decisions may be understandable, because CCMA arbitration awards do not create binding legal precedent in the same way as court judgments. The most recent CCMA ruling therefore does not set a binding legal precedent that employees cannot be dismissed for refusing to get a COVID vaccine.
The Labour Court has also not yet delivered any binding judgment about whether an employer can fairly dismiss an employee who refuses to get a Covid vaccination. Until this occurs, it is likely the CCMA will continue to give conflicting decisions about whether employers can fairly dismiss employees who refuse to get a vaccine.
Below, we explain what the law currently says about whether an employee can be dismissed for refusing to get a COVID vaccine and under what circumstances.
Labour Relations Act
The Labour Relations Act (LRA) says that an employee can only be dismissed for these reasons: when they are guilty of misconduct; suffer from an incapacity, such as ill health or injury, which prevents them from performing their duties; have to be retrenched because of the economic, structural, technological or similar needs of their employer.
The LRA also requires an employer to follow a fair procedure before dismissing an employee. Usually, this would involve explaining to an employee why they could be dismissed if they refuse to get a Covid vaccine and give the employee an opportunity to explain why they should not be dismissed.
The LRA, however, does not explain whether an employee who refuses to get vaccinated can be dismissed for misconduct or incapacity. The LRA also does not explain whether an employee who refuses to get a Covid vaccine can be retrenched.
Occupational Health and Safety Act
But the Occupational Health and Safety Act does require employers to take all reasonable steps to provide their employees with a safe and healthy working environment. The act also requires employers to take reasonable steps to ensure other people who may be affected by their business activities (such as customers or suppliers) are not exposed to a hazard to their health or safety – such as Covid.
During March, the Minister of Labour issued a Code of Good Practice which explains the steps that an employer should take to manage Covid in their workplace and to comply with their legal duties to provide a safe and healthy working environment.
This code was enacted after a previous directive on managing Covid in the workplace was repealed after the State of Disaster came to an end.
Code of Good Practice
According to the new Code of Good Practice, every employer with at least 20 employees must conduct a “risk assessment” and must develop a COVID plan with the measures it will implement regarding vaccination of employees and when they should be fully vaccinated. When developing the plan, the employer must consult with any representative trade union in its workplace or an employee representative.
The risk assessment and plan, among other things, should identify employees who must be vaccinated and must notify them of their duty to get a vaccination.
The code also states employers can require employees to disclose their vaccination status and to produce a vaccine certificate in order to give effect to the code.
The code further states that employees can lawfully refuse work when there exists a serious risk that they may imminently be exposed to COVID in the workplace. Should this occur, the employer cannot take any action against that employee for refusing to work, such as later dismissing or suspending them from work.
There may be situations where a refusal by employees to work because other employees refuse to get vaccinated, could justify the dismissal of the employees who refuse to get a COVID vaccine. This is because the refusal of many employees to work could affect the ability of a company or business to operate. This could potentially justify retrenchment of employees who refuse to get a COVID vaccine.
However, should an employee refuse to get vaccinated, the code also says that the employer should take steps to reasonably accommodate them in a position that does not require them to be vaccinated. Should an employee produce a valid medical certificate, which provides legitimate reasons why they cannot be vaccinated, the employer can send that employee to another doctor at their own expense.
The code does recognise that it would be unfair to dismiss employees who cannot be vaccinated on valid medical grounds. But, the duty to accommodate employees who refuse to get vaccinated on other grounds would depend on whether an employer has another position available which does not require that employee to be vaccinated. Should the employer not have an alternative position which does not require the employee to be vaccinated, this could be a fair reason to dismiss them.
It is important to note that the code does state that it reflects the policy position of the Department of Labour and that it should be applied until any of its provisions are reversed by a court judgment. Until the Labour Court delivers a binding judgment on when employees can be dismissed for refusing to get a COVID vaccination, it would seem it would be best to follow the provisions of the code.
In what is becoming something of a regular occurrence for Gauteng hospitals, another fire has broken at beleaguered Charlotte Maxeke Academic Hospital on Tuesday night. Fortunately, the fire was contained to a currently unused parking area in a damaged section of the hospital. The situation was deemed not to be serious enough to warrant a patient evacuation.
A fire in April 2021 caused the closure of seven wards, with some 200 beds. Reopening had long been delayed, and there have been complaints of thefts of equipment and construction material. Alleged corruption has continued to dog the full reopening of the 1088-bed academic hospital, overloading other hospitals and also impacting the training of student doctors.
An investigation by Spotlight revealed a number of factors for the 2021 fire including ageing infrastructure, essential equipment such as fire doors not working, low water pressure and incompatible fire hydrants (due to theft), a lack of evacuation plans and a fire service that was woefully underequipped.
Gauteng department of health spokesperson Motalatale Modiba gave a report on the latest fire: “Late on Tuesday night, security personnel reported that there was smoke that seemed to be coming from one of the structures. Firefighters for the City of Joburg immediately responded to the situation and managed to contain the fire which was confined to a small section of the level two parking.”
“The level two parking is one of the areas that was affected by the April 2021 fire and is currently under props and not accessible to the public or staff except for construction people,” Modiba said.
“Upon assessment of the situation clinicians on site together with the facility’s head of disaster made a call that the situation did not warrant for patients to be evacuated as the smoke from the fire was not too thick or high risk for inhalation.”
This comes after two fires broke out within weeks of one another at Steve Biko Academic Hospital.
The rights of immigrant and undocumented women and children to access free healthcare in South Africa will be put to the test in a court challenge launched by SECTION27 in the Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg.
In December 2019, two-year-old Sibusiso Ncube died of poisoning after he was refused treatment at Charlotte Maxeke Hospital because his Zimbabwean mother could not instantly produce his birth certificate or pay R5000, says an affidavit in the court case.
This was not an isolated incident according to Umunyana Rugege, executive director of SECTION27.
“Since 2013, SECTION27 has been repeatedly approached by pregnant migrant women and children under six, who have been denied access to free health services. This is perpetuated through discriminatory subordinate laws and practices,” Rugege says in her affidavit.
“They have routinely been denied access to the health care services, or they are pressured into signing acknowledgements of debt and undertakings to pay for services.”
SECTION27 wants all the relevant ordinances and regulations scrapped. It also seeks an an order that the Minister of Health issue a circular to all provincial health departments recording that all pregnant or lactating women, and children under six, who are not members of medical aid schemes and who have not come to South Africa to obtain health care, be entitled to free health services at any public health establishment, irrespective of their nationality and documentation status.
Rugege says that while the National Health Act does not place any limitation on the right to free health services, there are a range of subordinate laws and practices implemented at hospitals that impose conditions requiring proof of nationality and financial means.
“These laws and practices are unlawful,” she says.
Rugege cited other examples, such as a pregnant asylum seeker who was denied treatment after she was injured in a robbery. She was told she had to pay R2000 before a “file could be opened” at Steve Biko Academic Hospital.
Two months later, when she was eight months pregnant and went to Charlotte Maxeke, she was told she had to pay R20 000 if she wanted treatment and give birth at the hospital. Only after SECTION27 intervened, was she given an appointment, but the night before it she lost her baby.
Another Zimbabwean woman whose child needed emergency surgery was forced to sign an admission of debt for more than R34 000 at the same hospital. Then when he needed further surgery, it was denied because of the outstanding debt. The woman was further told that she would have to pay R5000 for admission and R50 000 for the second surgery.
Again SECTION27 intervened. But in March, when the mother took him back for a checkup, a nurse addressed everyone in the queue and told them that foreign nationals would not be attended to if they did not have money to pay. The mother, and others, left without being seen.
The application is supported by the Jesuit Refugee Service, The Southern African HIV Clinicians Society, and Doctors Without Borders; all are expected to file affidavits soon. Rugege says these will highlight discriminatory institutional policies and systematic xenophobic practices and attitudes that have “detrimental and sometimes fatal consequences”.
“There is simply no coherent approach at different public health establishments … even within a single establishment, different officials treat patients differently,” she said. Access to health care depends on who is on duty that day. On “lucky days” people will gain access without any trouble.
The respondents – the MEC and Gauteng health department head, the Minister and Director-General of Health – have 15 days to file notices of opposition.
With the US Supreme Court’s overturning the Roe v Wade decision, abortion rights are now up to individual US states. However, while there are no legal implications for the rest of the world, it will undoubtedly have a huge influence on other countries’ abortion campaigning and lawmaking decisions. Future anti-abortion efforts in the US may also impact the country’s funding of reproductive services in regions such as Africa.
Without access to legal, safe abortion, many pregnant people will turn to unsafe methods. According to the World Health Organization, 97% of all unsafe abortions happen in developing countries. Some 4.7–13.2% of maternal deaths are attributable to unsafe abortion.
Although Roe v Wade does not have a legal effect in Africa, it was frequently invoked in abortion. Tunisia liberalised its abortion law just nine months after the Roe v Wade ruling – allowing women to access the service on demand. Additionally, in 1986, Cape Verde allowed for abortion on request prior to 12 weeks gestation which aligns with Roe v Wade holding of the same.
In South Africa, the right to abortion is not directly enshrined in the Constitution, but the 1996 Choice in Termination of Pregnancy Act greatly widened accessibility to safe, legal abortions, causing a 90% drop in abortion mortality from 1994 to 2001. The previous apartheid-era laws and their enforcement were predictably stained by racism: abortion was limited to encourage white population growth while contraceptives were promoted to control the population growth of black and coloured people. Wealthy whites could fly to England for an abortion there if they could not arrange one. The 1996 Act was met with significant opposition on religious grounds, and it is speculated that had the ANC done this with an open vote, it would not have passed with such a wide margin.
Even today, research shows that abortion remains highly stigmatised among South Africans, with 75.4% of people surveyed indicating that it was “always wrong” in case of family poverty, and 52.5% indicating the same for either foetal abnormality or family poverty. Provincial splits are apparent, with Gauteng and Limpopo having a > 1 odds ratio of being against abortion.
The 2003 Maputo Protocol adopted by the African Union requires countries to authorise medical abortions in cases of sexual assault, rape, incest, or where the health of the mother is endangered. This specific provision draws from the 1979 United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), whose clause on access to safe abortion was based on on Roe v Wade. However, 12 AU members have not ratified the protocol, and many of those who did have not fully brought their laws into line. South Africa is only one of six African nations that effectively allow elective abortions. Of these, Mozambique and Benin only fully changed their laws in 2020 and 2021.
Abortion opponents led by the Catholic Church and its affiliates enjoy widespread political and social support in many African countries. In 2020, Bhekisisa investigated African pregnancy crisis centres funded by US anti-abortion groups. These centres actively discourage abortion, exerting pressure on girls and women and are rife with misinformation, such as grossly exaggerating the size and development of the foetus in early stages of pregnancy. One NGO offered training to say that abortion would “turn” women’s partners gay if they got an abortion.
Thus, while the legal outcome of Roe v Wade being overturned will have no bearing on South Africa, it will conceivably embolden anti-abortion groups both domestically and abroad and likely to increase the influence they already exert in the country.
South Africa has recorded its first case of monkeypox Thursday, 23 June. Health Minister Dr Joe Phaahla said that he received a report from the National Health Laboratory Services’ CEO that lab tests have confirmed the first case of monkeypox in South Africa, a 30-year-old man from Johannesburg.
The South African Health Products Regulatory Authority (SAHPRA) has prepared information on monkeypox symptoms and treatment. However, the pharmaceutical treatments for it (tecovirimat and brincidofovir) are not registered in South Africa.
Symptoms and epidemiology
The monkeypox virus causes symptoms similar to smallpox, but less severe. Symptoms include:
Skin rash
Headache
Swollen lymph nodes
Muscle and body pains
Back pain
Weakness
The monkeypox virus is endemic to Central and West Africa in two distinct clades with differing severities: the West Africa (< 1% case fatality rate) and the Congo Basin (11% case fatality rate). Human-to-human transmission can occur via contact with bodily fluids, skin lesions or internal mucosal surfaces such as the mouth or throat, respiratory droplets, and contaminated objects.
The polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test is the best, most reliable testing method, and the best specimens are sourced from rash, fluids or crusts. Antigen and antibody detection are not accurate.
Since 15 June 2022, 2 103 laboratory confirmed cases of monkeypox, one probable case, and one death have been reported to the World Health Organisation (WHO) from 42 countries. Endemic countries include Benin, Cameroon, Central African Republic, DRC, Gabon, Ghana, Ivory Coast, Liberia, Nigeria, Sierra Leone and South Sudan. To date all cases have been identified as being infected by the West African Clade.
Cases have been identified in South Africa, Australia, Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, UK, and the USA.
Information suggests that this is common among homosexual men and who seek treatment and care at healthcare institutions. Furthermore, those at risk are individuals who have had physical contact with someone with monkeypox.
Monkeypox management and treatment
Any patient with suspected symptoms should be investigated, and if confirmed, isolated until such time that their lesions have crusted, scabs have fallen off and a fresh layer of skin has formed.
According to the National Institute Communicable Diseases (NICD), this type of infection does not require specific treatment as the disease does resolve on its own. Currently in South Africa, there is no specific vaccine registered for monkeypox; however, the Varicella Zoster is registered for smallpox.
There are no specific treatments for the Monkeypox infection, but outbreaks can be controlled. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved tecovirimat (TPOXX) and brincidofovir (TEMBEXA) for the treatment of smallpox; however, these have not been registered in South Africa.
It is important to note that most human cases of Monkeypox resolve within 2–3 weeks of being infected without side-effects. Also, an infected person is infectious at the start of the rash/lesions through the stage when scabs form. However, when these scabs fall off, the person is no longer contagious.
COVID restrictions have finally come to an end altogether in South Africa, as Health Minister Joe Phaahla gazetted a number of changes to the rules, as reported by BusinessTech. This means the end of mask use requirements, social gatherings restrictions and COVID border testing. Prof Shabir Madhi was welcoming of the move in a recent tweet, having criticised SA’s lockdowns as overly harsh and economically damaging. Around the world, many had questioned the widespread use of masks, or their use by some subset of the population, such as children – and even questioned locally by a scientist who argued that it didn’t and wouldn’t work in a South African setting, where people are less adherent to regulations.
Professor Salim Abdool Karim likened such a viewpoint to saying Africans with HIV can’t use ARVs because they didn’t have watches to take them at the right time, reminiscent of “a colonial mentality”.
The case for public mask use is well established. Experiments had shown that even simple cloth masks were moderately effective at hindering the transmission of SARS-CoV-2–containing aerosol particle from infected individuals, though they were less effective at protecting a wearer against infection. Predictably, N95 masks and others are better at doing the job than simple cloth face coverings.
There are no real-world studies for South Africa comparing mask use vs non-mask use as mask wearing was compulsory from the early stages of the outbreak. It would have been downright unethical to ask people to not wear masks, although some people may have had exemptions due to medical conditions or other important reasons. There is a country with good COVID surveillance and a distinct division in mask wearing – the United States. Implementation of mask mandates in the US was down to local authorities, which provides a basis for comparison.
One US study, published in Health Affairs, found that, compared to nonmasking counties, masking counties saw a daily case incidence decline by 25% at four weeks, 35% at six weeks after introduction of masking mandates. The reductions were strongest in Republican-leaning counties, which is notable since Republican voters were less in favour of lockdowns and mask mandates.
Another study found a 16.9% drop in cases four weeks after counties introduced masking mandates. Real-world data also show mask use was effective in preventing infection. A case-and-control study done in California by the CDC showed a 29% drop for surgical mask/respirator use “some of the time” and a 56% drop for “all of the time”.
While a direct comparison between a wealthy country like the US and South Africa as a middle-income country is impossible, it is easy to believe that masking mandates reduced cases by a significant percentage, perhaps saving tens of thousands of lives especially against the country’s possible true COVID death toll of 300 000.
