Obviously this is disputed, because it's impossible to tell - saying "not been documented" is quite a neutral statement.
Even if surface transmission is unlikely, a single case could be enough to trigger a wider outbreak. So, if you are doing what you can to prevent aerosol transmission, then it also makes sense to minimise surface transmission.
That is just a hypothesis. We know little about the soundness of the evaluation of all likely vectors for this case. Also, "if it would save just one life" is where you're going with the last sentence. Diverting attention into non-existent or rare transmission vectors removes attention from known transmission vectors, which will increase infections.
> Also, "if it would save just one life" is where you're going with the last sentence.
Please read again. If a virus is transmitted even once via a surface, it is then free to transmit onwards by whatever method is most efficient. This is likely to cause an outbreak whenever R>1.
Preventing an additional outbreak is more relevant in NZ than in the US, perhaps.
Obviously this is disputed, because it's impossible to tell - saying "not been documented" is quite a neutral statement.
Even if surface transmission is unlikely, a single case could be enough to trigger a wider outbreak. So, if you are doing what you can to prevent aerosol transmission, then it also makes sense to minimise surface transmission.