[Desk Column] Statistical Errors in 'Death After ○○'

[Asia Economy Lee Jeong-il, Deputy Director and Head of the 4th Industrial Department]

There is a secret to hitting the bullseye every time you shoot an arrow. First, you shoot the arrow. Then, you draw the target around the arrow. Bullseye. This story, which begins with "Once upon a time, there was a divine archer..." ends abruptly with "It turned out he wasn't a divine archer after all." Indeed, the context between the arrow (cause) and the bullseye (effect) is not scientific at all. Yet, our brains are easily deceived because causal relationships are surprisingly flimsy. This is even more so when fear gets involved.

The controversy over the influenza (flu) vaccine is a case in point. It is like drawing a target of "death" around the arrow called "vaccine." As always, the beginning was sensational. "A 17-year-old boy died after receiving the vaccine." (First media report on October 19) The fragmentary facts of this incident were as follows: "Free flu vaccine administered around noon on the 14th. No special symptoms before or after vaccination. Death on the morning of the 16th. Cause of death under investigation." The problem was that this fact was summarized in one line as "died after receiving the vaccine." Suddenly, the situation escalated to a dangerous conclusion: "The vaccine killed the person."

From then on, incidents presumed to be "vaccine-related deaths" piled up. "10 deaths in six days cause flu vaccine shock" (October 22), "Deaths nationwide rise to 34" (October 23), "48 deaths after flu vaccination" (October 24), "Cumulative death reports reach 83" (October 31). The vaccine had already suffered a setback due to a distribution accident involving "exposure to room temperature." With the addition of death incidents, public anxiety intensified.

There are facts pointing in a completely different direction. The government announced that autopsy results showed no causal relationship between the vaccine and deaths. "The causality between death and vaccination is very low, and there is no situation to consider suspending the vaccine immunization program." (Jung Eun-kyung, Director of the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency) Professor Jung Jae-hoon of Gachon University Medical School (Department of Preventive Medicine) also supported this in an article for the Korean Medical Association Journal. "In Korea, about 300,000 people die annually, and deaths increase in winter, reaching 1,000 per day in October. Assuming a 50% flu vaccination rate and that these people receive the vaccine over two months, about 1% of the population is vaccinated daily. Therefore, among 10 vaccinated people, one will die within a day for any reason." This argues that death and vaccination are separate facts with no causal relationship. Otherwise, we could easily fall into statistical errors like "death after showering" or "death after walking."

So why does distrust of the vaccine persist despite this situation? This is the point where medical experts feel perplexed. The "gap between phenomenon and interpretation" where vaccine fear does not disappear despite the lack of scientific evidence. Is it due to some media's fear marketing or fake news?

Hans Rosling, a world-renowned statistician and physician, pointed in a different direction in his book "Factfulness." He explained that people can misinterpret facts right in front of them, which stems from how our brains work. "The human brain has evolved over hundreds of years and helped our ancestors survive by hunting and gathering. The brain often makes snap judgments without deep thought, which helps avoid immediate danger." (page 29) The problem is that this "fear instinct" can distort a fact-based worldview. "Fear makes us focus on things that are not dangerous and ignore things that are actually very dangerous." (page 173)

How would he, who fought ignorance with a fact-based worldview, view our vaccine situation? The answer lies in his words, "Fear and danger are distinctly different." Fear arises even in situations that are truly dangerous (1), potentially dangerous (2), or not dangerous (3). Unlike 1 and 2, 3 is wasteful. Unfortunately, we are close to 3. Repeatedly, separating fear from danger is scientific thinking. We must not shoot the arrow and then draw the target around it. Especially to protect the trust in vaccination that we have built over a long time.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.