6 South Africa variant cases, 30 more UK variant cases detected
HEALTH authorities on Tuesday, March 2, 2021, said six infections with the South Africa variant, 30 additional UK variant cases and two more cases with mutations have been detected.
These cases, found among the eighth batch of 350 samples sequenced by the Up-philippine Genome Center (PGC), were reported a day after the government kicked off its vaccination program against coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19).
In a statement, the Department of Health (DOH) said three South Africa variant cases are residents of Pasay City and two are returning overseas Filipinos (ROF). The location of the sixth case was still being verified as of Tuesday.
The South Africa variant of Sars-cov-2, or B.1.351, has not been proven to cause a more severe form of Covid19, DOH said.
But “the pattern of mutations within this variant suggests higher transmissibility and may have an impact on vaccine efficacy,” it added. Among the vaccines under development, only the Novavax and Janssen were reported to be partially efficacious against this variant.
Samples from the three Pasay City residents were collected between January 27 and February 13.
Two are active cases, a 61-year-old female and a 39year-old male. They are being managed by the local government unit.
The third, a 40-year-old male, has recovered.
The two ROFS arrived in the country from UAE and Qatar. DOH said they were still verifying their status.
B.1.1.7 variant
The 30 additional cases with the B.1.1.7 or UK variant include 20 ROFS, three local cases, and seven who have yet to be classified as local or ROF.
These brought the total B.1.1.7 variant cases in the Philippines to 87.
The DOH statement said the 30 newly detected cases were added to the 57 existing cases.
The PGC had originally found a total of 62 B.1.1.7 cases, but upon submission of the sequencing data to the Global Initiative on Sharing of All Influenza Data (GISAID), five were reclassified as belonging to other variants.
The 20 ROFS with the B.1.1.7 variant came from the Middle East, Singapore, and the United States of America between January 20 and February 16.
Thirteen are asymptomatic active cases while seven have recovered.
Three local cases all came from the Cordillera Administrative Region.
One case is active and admitted to a hospital, one has recovered and one was a reported fatality, bringing the mortalities from B.1.1.7 to two.
DOH said it was still investigating whether these 30 additional cases were linked to the cluster of B.1.1.7 cases reported earlier.
Mutations
PGC also found two additional cases with mutations of interest from Central Visayas region.
These brought the total number of cases in Central Visayas to 34, since two cases were delisted upon further verification.
These cases were found to contain both the N501Y and E484K mutations.
According to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the N501Y mutation was found in the B.1.1.7 lineage, which was first announced in the United Kingdom (UK).
The B.1.351 lineage, which was found in South Africa, contains both the N501Y and E484K mutations as well as another mutation K417N.
The N501Y and E484K mutations were also found in the P.1 variant that was reported by Japan in four travelers from Brazil. The P.1 lineage also contains the mutation K417T. DOH reiterated the need to adhere to minimum public health standards as “the best course of action to prevent community transmission and further virus mutations.” The agency called on LGUS to be on heightened alert to monitor, detect and report unusual spikes in cases in their area./ Sunstar Philippines
IN CASE the explanation didn’t reach you, we highlight March as Fire Prevention Month because it’s this time of year when our part of the world is at its hottest. Past that tip, it now makes sense to you why our firefighters blared loud in the streets—balloons, tarps and all—monday, March 1, to launch its information campaign on anything about fire.
The Bureau of Fire Protection believes public awareness is key to fire prevention. Much of the efforts, as always, have been poured into educating the public. The agency published on various platforms practical tips for households to prevent fire, fire drills, safety during fire, aftermath protocols. It has been a yearly tradition.
For instance, simple tips like never leaving an electrical cord under a carpet or making sure batteries in smoke alarms are regularly checked. “Keep space heaters on a level surface,” one of the tips says, “on a level surface from fabric and other flammable items.” The BFP also highlights the Red Cross safety practices in cases of fire. Take this one: “If smoke, heat or flames block your exit routes, stay in the room with doors closed. Place a wet towel under the door and call the fire department. Open a window and wave a brightly colored cloth or flashlight to signal for help.”
These are all very helpful tips. Well and good, yes. Except that for the large part, the overall message seems to mean that the responsibility of fire prevention rests in respective households. On citizens, solely.
Year in and year out, there’s a cyclic fire scenario that is all too familiar. Most fire incidents happen in low-income areas, where houses are readily combustible, where the communities can hardly cope with the aftermath without government assistance. Almost always, we see the routine of creating temporary shelters, release of calamity funds, relocation or re-blocking of areas. Government funds have been poured on the calamity scenario.
This month should be high time we get down to the figures. Which areas in the city in the last 10 years have been hit by fire? Are they mostly depressed areas? What are the common causes? A cursory look is a match between a low-income house and faulty electrical wiring. The math tells you that poor households may be unable to install proper electrical wiring or fix old domestic power lines. The combustible housing materials are easy fodder for fire.
These things can be known and may be studied by government. You can’t solve poverty overnight; you may as well pour funds meantime to install mechanisms for fire protection in urban poor communities. Just how many fire hydrants are functioning in the city and do our poor barangays have them?
The magnitude of post-fire damage in depressed neighborhoods eats up government funds when the latter could have been invested on prevention or on quick firefighting capacities in inner cities.
A shift in priority probably makes sense—fighting fire all year round by way of getting into more realistic, concrete and wider efforts on prevention.*