Anti-vaxxers pose an immediate, serious threat to global public health. It's time to get tough.

There is no more fertile breeding ground for conspiracy theories than social media. Perhaps the most dangerous of these theories, loosely based on long since discredited research, claims that vaccines are dangerous and should be avoided. A quagmire of anti-vaccine fantasy is festering on social media, and algorithms designed to “give users more of what they want” are leading nervous parents straight in.

Matt Hancock, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, is determined to drain the swamp, and announced last week that social media companies could be hit with new laws to stop them allowing the spread of so-called anti-vaxxers’ myths online.

This is not the first time that Hancock has refused to kowtow to Zuckerberg et al. After the tragic suicide of Molly Russell, he urged big tech giants to “step up” and “purge” the internet of content promoting self-harm.

As Charlotte Henry wrote last week , the Health Secretary’s pugnacity is welcome and refreshing. For over a decade, bemused politicians – dazzled by the glow of shiny new technology – treated young Silicon Valley entrepreneurs as demi-gods, reverently avoiding passing any laws which may inconvenience them. After a series of scandals, lawmakers on both sides of the Atlantic now accept that allowing big tech companies to run wild wasn’t wise, but most are reluctant to legislate retroactively for fear of public backlash. Hancock’s dogged insistence that big tech can – and must – be subject to proper regulation marks him out as a trailblazer.

But when it comes to ‘vaccine hesitancy’, as it is euphemistically known, Hancock has got his priorities wrong. Anti-vaxx conspiracy theories may have germinated in the murky backwaters of Facebook and Instagram, but they’ve outgrown even Zuckerberg’s monstrous creations. The moment for wagging a finger at big tech has passed: policymakers must now get tough on the gullible and stubborn anti-vaxxers who pay heed to rumours peddled by foolish cranks.

A parent’s decision not to vaccinate affects not only his or her child, but the whole population. “Herd immunity” – when the vaccination of a significant portion of a population provides protection for individuals who, for whatever reason, cannot be vaccinated – kicks in only when 93-95 per cent of those eligible have received their jabs. NHS data shows the proportion of two-year-olds immunised against measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) fell for the fourth year in a row in 2017-18 in the UK to 91.2 per cent, meaning that tiny babies, the frail and the elderly are now at risk of contracting these grim diseases.

In 2016, with a global vaccination debate swelling, the Australian government introduced a policy known as “no jab, no pay,” under which parents of unvaccinated children lose government benefits and welfare rebates. Some objected to what they saw as authoritarian measures, but the data is in the government’s favour; the financial incentives have encouraged families to comply with vaccination requirements, and between December 2015 and March 2017, the immunisation rate for one-year-olds in Australia increased by about one percentage point, to 93.6 per cent.

Britain must now adopt a similar approach. Of course, it’s appalling how easy it is to access false and harmful information online. And of course, social media companies – which are publishers, not neutral distributors of content as they like to claim – should bear some responsibility. But while making an example of Silicon Valley is laudable and necessary, it is not the priority here. As Facebook and Instagram grapple with the (self-inflicted) challenge of monitoring 4.75 billion pieces of content a day, children are dying of diseases which should have been eradicated at the turn of the century