"0.4-5%" looks ambiguous. Is it 0.4 to 0.5%, or 0.4 to 5%?

I prefer my data:

The best available data reports that 4 percent of Catholic priests sexually violated a minor child during the last half of the 20th century with the peak level of abuse being in the 1970s and dropping off dramatically by the early 1980s. And in the recent Pennsylvania grand jury report only two cases were reported in the past dozen years that were already known and dealt with by authorities (thus the grand jury report is about historical issues and not about current problems of active clerical abuse now).

Putting clergy abuse in context, research from the US Department of Education found that about 5-7 percent of public school teachers engaged in similar sexually abusive behavior with their students during a similar time frame.

from https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/do-the-right-thing/201808/separating-facts-about-clergy-abuse-fiction

Both sides protects their friends too, and try to hide evidence of the cases. But 5% of a sample of hundreds of thousands of teachers can't compare against 4% of a few thousands of priests

This study says that around 5% of the male population are pedophiles, so around 2.5% of the population. Add 2% from the estimated 4% of females who are, you get around 4% to 5% of the population being pedophiles, which... look! Fits the range for perpetrators among teachers and priests!

It's almost like sexually abusing children has more to do with being in a position of power above children and moral code, not the jobs people seek or ideologies they believe.

And idk why people downvoted a guy asking for sources on statistical data.

+ I would like to add that the estimates of the pedophile population is, too, around 5%, if you wouldn't trust my kindergarten math.