“If you want to argue non-linearity of danger then you are arguing for a very remarkable biological coincidence.“
What do you mean here? Can you give a bit more info?
Note, I am pretty well versed on nonlinearities from a mathematical-engineering point of view, but know very very little about biology. (If that’s of any use to know)
There's a specific minimum dosage most people have of allergen before they hit on a life-threatening reaction. You might be okay with trace amount of peanuts, swell up with one peanut, and die with five. It's pretty consistent, and very nonlinear.
That's why you can build up a tolerance to iocane powder too; small doses won't do anything, while large ones are guaranteed to kill. If it was linear, a 1/10th lethal dose would have a 10% chance of killing you.
Chest x-ray is pretty linear within reasonable dosage ranges, for much the same reason I'd expect mRNA damage to be.
This contrast with e.g. sports brain trauma, where one sports brain trauma might be relatively moderate risk, but two might be very high risk (much more than double). Or risk from ibuprofen, where 600mg is has close to zero risk, but an overdose of 60,000mg poses a significant risk of death (much more than 100x the risk of death of a 600mg dose). That's nonlinear.
I'm not sure how risk from mRNA defects would be anything but linear. It would take an extraordinary set of coincidences.
I’m confused so let me try an analogy with DNA: most mutations do nothing. Every now and then, cancer. Sample a large number of mutations for a short duration, and you have proven nothing regarding nonlinearity globally. Roughly speaking.
Another example: I can measure a the air near (but not to near) a shockwave, or just under (By human scale) the free surface of the ocean, and find pretty much linear behavior if no other pathologies are present. The underlying physics however, is not linear, it is only my approximation which is. Maybe it’s valid over configurations of interest. But then I better know something about the limits of my approximation.
If I understand woofie11 correctly, it means that the probability that an error in a single mRNA corresponds with an error in another mRNA to cause a larger perceivable effect is small. The errors would have to be made in the exact same way.
If an mRNA mutation were to make a self-replicating virus, or make something which damages DNA leading to cancer, or something wonky like that, I guess that's in abstract possible. It can make abstract proteins, and we don't know what those will do.
In that case, if I have twice as much mutated mRNA in my body, the odds of that happening almost exactly double. It's like rolling a 1-trillion sided die twice instead of once and seeing if I roll a 1. With one roll, I have a 1-in-a-trillion chance. With two rolls, I have a 2-in-a-trillion chance (minus 1-in-a-septillion of having the same thing happen twice, which we don't know what it would do, but is a small enough possibility we can ignore).
But yeah, unless something really wonky going on, I'm not going to end up with hundreds of strands of mutated mRNA in my body *all doing the same thing*.
The statistics as derived from the dynamics of “how rna works” - yeah that’s compelling.
This:
“If an mRNA mutation were to make a self-replicating virus, or make something which damages DNA leading to cancer, or something wonky like that, I guess that's in abstract possible. It can make abstract proteins, and we don't know what those will do.”
Sounds astronomically I likely, but with unknown error bars. Sounds like our If our cross section test Is large enough going on long enough, we might just get there.
A prion (misfolded protein that causes other proteins to misfold) is more likely, but even then prions need to misfold in specific ways that encourage their replication as well. In all likelihood the error is just going to prevent the ribosome from finishing transcription and we'll have just a fragment of whatever protein the RNA initially encoded for.
Ibuprofen reaches a threshold of toxicity; a level at which our body's ability to manage it gets met and then exceeded. Things go rapidly wrong at that point.
Degraded mRNA just... doesn't work. It'd be a problem if all the mRNA in your cells started suddenly degrading faster than usual, for sure, but that's because you need the resulting protein output to live. If the vaccine degrades too fast, it just doesn't produce the proteins it was supposed to, but we didn't need them to function. Lost efficacy, but you don't wind up growing extra arms.