I don't have good data on the subject, and I'm not well-calibrated. But my expectation of the rate of severe errors, made by well-meaning people in a complex endeavor, is for at least 1% retractions (3.5 orders of magnitude above the current 0.0017%). That would still be less than one lifetime retraction per scientist on average.

And another thought: if scientists are really so thorough as to achieve a very low rate of major errors, they are probably overspending. It would be more efficient (fewer false negatives in self-vetting and less time spent self-vetting) to be bolder in publishing and rely more on vetting and reproduction by others.