The Rwanda deportations are wrong on many levels (UK to ignore ECHR rulings on small boats ‘after Sunak caves in to Tory right, 19 April). I wish to draw attention to an aspect of this debate that doesn’t appear to be being addressed adequately, or even at all.
Rwanda has holoendemic falciparum malaria, ie high malaria transmission of the most deadly malaria variant, in all areas, in all seasons. Rwandan adults have a reasonable level of immunity, although they can get malaria and become seriously unwell. Immunity is developed through years of recurrent childhood infections, which many children do not survive.
Having worked as a paediatrician in an area of Kenya with holoendemic falciparum malaria, I can attest to how lethal it is. The UK plan is to send asylum seekers to Rwanda from a broad swathe of the globe, including north Africa, Albania, the Middle East, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Most of these places have either no or low malaria transmission. The only country with high transmission is Pakistan, although that is a much less severe variant. Thus, Suella Braverman is planning to send falciparum malaria-naive persons to a place with severe year‑round transmission.
They would need preventative antimalarials, insecticide‑containing nets, and quick access to curative antimalarials if these precautions fail. Rwanda can’t even meet the healthcare needs of its own citizens, so the chances of it meeting the health needs of deported asylum seekers is negligible.
I cannot imagine it is legal to deport people to a place where the chances of developing a severe, often fatal, disease are so high as to be inevitable.
Prof Elspeth Webb
Penarth, Vale of Glamorgan
• Have an opinion on anything you’ve read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
