On April 2nd, a bereaved victim's family shed tears as the 'Act on Special Cases Concerning Compensation for Damages from COVID-19 Vaccination' passed the National Assembly plenary session. [Photo=Yonhap News]

Numbers do not speak emotions. However, the numbers chosen as benchmarks ultimately reveal a nation's choices.

The figures of 1,285 reports of foreign substances, 2,137 reported deaths following vaccination, and the 23 cases recognized by the government for causal links prompt us to reconsider the direction of discretion exercised by the South Korean administration during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Numbers explain events, but they do not inherently dictate the direction of judgment.

During the COVID-19 period, the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency (KDCA) opted to recall and discard individual vaccines where foreign substances were found, while not suspending vaccinations from the same manufacturing batch. The justification was that no manufacturing defects had been confirmed.

This was not a mandatory action dictated by law, but a result of administrative discretion exercised during a crisis.

At the time, public health authorities explained that they considered the pace of vaccination, supply realities, and the burden on the healthcare system.

However, subsequent audits raised different questions.

The question was whether it was possible to halt the process even at the stage of 'potential risk,' rather than waiting for 'confirmed risk.'

Japan made a different choice around the same time.

Even when the cause was not clearly identified, they proactively suspended entire lots.

Neither country had legally mandated automatic suspension provisions.

Ultimately, the difference lay in the direction of discretion rather than the system itself.

One was a decision to continue vaccinations until the risk was confirmed, while the other was a choice to stop preemptively in anticipation of the worst-case scenario.

The issue is not which choice was right, but on what basis that choice was made.

Therefore, the numbers 1,285, 2,137, and 23 remain as different languages.

1,285 was an administrative management figure, 2,137 was the number remembered by bereaved families, and 23 was the number officially recognized by the state.

The reason why numbers born in the same period point to different realities is that discretion does not always operate neutrally.

Discretion is a choice, and choices involve priorities.

No public officials were punished because the administration acted within legally permissible limits.

However, the absence of legal liability does not mean that social questions have also disappeared.

For those still calling out the names of the deceased in front of City Hall, discretion is not a technical term of administration but another name for the questions left behind.

Ultimately, we are left with one question to ask again.

In the midst of the crisis, what was the choice made by the state in exercising its discretion intended to protect?

Discretion is the language of last resort that a state possesses in a crisis.

However, the criteria by which that discretion operated does not disappear with time. Numbers remain, records remain, and memories remain.

As long as the numbers 1,285, 2,137, and 23 exist as different faces of the same era, the judgments made during the COVID-19 period will not simply end as past administrative actions.

Discretion can be explained by law, but whose safety was prioritized by that discretion is a question society will ultimately ask again.

And as long as that question persists, this story is not over; it is still unfolding.