> (e.g. the Bay Area), about 0.1% of the population is infected weekly I don't know if your 0.1% number is accurate, but let's assume that it is. If somehow ca

> (e.g. the Bay Area), about 0.1% of the population is infected weekly I don't know if your 0.1% number is accurate, but let's assume that it is. If somehow cases remain completely level for the rest of the school year (which is far from a given, but for the sake of argument ...) over the course of 40 weeks, a randomly-chosen person has roughly a 40 * 0.1% = 4% chance of getting infected. But that is a randomly-chosen person, whereas it's not hard to imagine that a teacher exposed for hours daily to multiple young kids who aren't good at keeping their germs to themselves is (ballpark) maybe 6x as likely to get infected as a random person [1]. So then we arrive at an estimate of perhaps 24% odds of a teacher getting infected during the 2020-2021 school year using my assumptions (which you are free to disagree with). Is 24% "almost certain"? No, but by highlighting the tiny 0.1% number, I think you are potentially seriously misrepresenting the true risk to an individual teacher. Hopefully, all of the measures that school districts might put into place will make my 6x-elevated risk estimate incorrect, but it's really hard to know. It's also possible that kids just don't transmit the virus very often. There's some evidence that that's the case, but I don't think we have really solid data on the question. [1] "Teachers had six times more germs in their workspace than accountants, the second-place finisher ..." https://abcnews.go.com/Health/ColdandFluNews/dirty-ten-germy-jobs/story?id=6107063 https://abcnews.go.com/Health/ColdandFluNews/dirty-ten-germy...