[M T]

As for the speculation regarding fomites, I keep thinking back to that Korean call center study.

I think it was a 15 story building where they tested 1,145 contacts. The first case was on the 10th floor, but from then on, 97% of the confirmed cases were all on the 11th floor, and of those, almost all of them were in close range.

If fomites were such a formidable source of spread, I'd expect more of the infections to break out beyond the 11th floor, and to pass to co-workers on different floors and on the opposite side of the building.

I disagree. (and, by the way, you pulled "formidable" out of your air.  I suggested no such thing.)

I work among a set of people that work on the 2nd floor and basement of a building.  I rarely touch anything not on my floors, except the door handles to go up/down the stairs and the entry/exit door. People that work on the first floor rarely touch the stair doors.  Indeed, if I used the elevator, the only things I'd touch are the Up button on the first floor and the "2" button (which people on other floors would rarely touch).

I do believe this call center example is a good example of likely spread by aerosol. Indeed, the talking involved in a call center, could be why this would have more spread than monks in pews quietly praying.   I wish the authors had also indicated where negative tests were -- we don't know that every position was occupied.   The virus spread over 12 days (in that room) before the call center was shutdown.  That could be at as much as 7 generations rather than one super-spreading event.  (A friend's family was involved in 4 generations of infections in 6 days: A->B->C->D where C was not exposed to A nor was D exposed to A or B.)  It could be droplet spread from person to person rather than an infectious aerosol cloud.

But just because drunk drivers cause a lot of accidents, doesn't mean that all accidents are due to drinking.  If you reduce the amount of drunk driving, but still have too many accidents, maybe you need to look if there may be other causes rather than saying something like "One of the drivers must have been drinking even if we can't prove it;  We have to work harder to stop drunk driving!"

[M T]

As for the speculation regarding fomites, I keep thinking back to that Korean call center study.

I think it was a 15 story building where they tested 1,145 contacts. The first case was on the 10th floor, but from then on, 97% of the confirmed cases were all on the 11th floor, and of those, almost all of them were in close range.

If fomites were such a formidable source of spread, I'd expect more of the infections to break out beyond the 11th floor, and to pass to co-workers on different floors and on the opposite side of the building.

I disagree. (and, by the way, you pulled "formidable" out of your air.  I suggested no such thing.)

I work among a set of people that work on the 2nd floor and basement of a building.  I rarely touch anything not on my floors, except the door handles to go up/down the stairs and the entry/exit door. People that work on the first floor rarely touch the stair doors.  Indeed, if I used the elevator, the only things I'd touch are the Up button on the first floor and the "2" button (which people on other floors would rarely touch).

I do believe this call center example is a good example of likely spread by aerosol. Indeed, the talking involved in a call center, could be why this would have more spread than monks in pews quietly praying.   I wish the authors had also indicated where negative tests were -- we don't know that every position was occupied.   The virus spread over 12 days (in that room) before the call center was shutdown.  That could be at as much as 7 generations rather than one super-spreading event.  (A friend's family was involved in 4 generations of infections in 6 days: A->B->C->D where C was not exposed to A nor was D exposed to A or B.)  It could be droplet spread from person to person rather than an infectious aerosol cloud.

But just because drunk drivers cause a lot of accidents, doesn't mean that all accidents are due to drinking.  If you reduce the amount of drunk driving, but still have too many accidents, maybe you need to look if there may be other causes rather than saying something like "One of the drivers must have been drinking even if we can't prove it;  We have to work harder to stop drunk driving!"