Listen, it is obvious that to optimize both the long-term health of the economy AND the people, some sort of compromise is going to have to be arrived at to reconcile these two opposing considerations. It is clear we may have to accept some risk in order to get some workers in some industries back to work and we will have to spend some money to take care of those we can’t. The question is, who decides what are “essential” enterprises, and how “essential” do they need to be. And who determines what an acceptable risk is. This is not a free market decision, nor a decision for free marketeers, it is a decision for a free government, not one dominated by commercial interests and the profit motive. There is bound to be debate here, and honest controversy is to be expected. That is why we have a democracy.

The point is, do we want the Laura Ingrahams and Donald Trumps of this nation to make that decision? Only the people who work in those industries, the front line and shop floor grunts and their elected representatives, should be empowered to make that choice, and they should be provided all the information they need to make it.

Those who tend to profit the most, and take the least risk, have no business making those decisions. They have the most incentive to make the wrong one, and there is no doubt in anyone’s mind that they will. Their office is not on the shop floor or the restaurant kitchen, and they don’t fly coach.

We learned a long time ago we don’t let tobacco company executives decide whether cigarettes cause lung cancer or not.

How much do you want to bet that Laura Ingraham wears a mask and is diligent about social distancing when she is off the air?

Fox News host Laura Ingraham, a political commentator who does not have a background in science, has used her platform to peddle the false claim that “there was no real scientific basis” to support federal social distancing guidance.

“Although, intuitively, I think it probably seemed like social distancing would be necessary, there was no real scientific basis for believing that since it had never been studied,” Ingraham claimed during Monday’s broadcast.

Those false comments were immediately rebuked by former Rep. Joe Walsh, a Republican who ran against Trump for the party’s presidential nomination.

“Have I mentioned before that watching Fox News can get you killed?” he asked on Twitter.

Ingraham on Monday also cited an anonymous infectious disease doctor who allegedly told her that “trying to stop this virus with social distancing is like trying to drive a nail through Jell-O.”

“Viruses spread — that’s what they do. They often weaken as they go. And if it’s like SARS — we hope it is — it’ll eventually burn out as SARS did,” Ingraham said, without clarifying whether she was still quoting the unnamed doctor.

The University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation — creators of the IHME model ballyhooed by the Trump administration — has revised its estimation upward to nearly 135,000 COVID-19 deaths by August, or more than double its first projection of 60,000 deaths. (The U.S. has thus far recorded more than 70,000 deaths.)

The institute said it made the revisions based on relaxed social distancing guidelines, noting the “rising mobility in most U.S. states as well as the easing of social distancing measures expected in 31 states by May 11, [indicates] that growing contacts among people will promote transmission of the coronavirus.” All models take into account varying degrees and durations of social distancing.

Ingraham, who has reportedly advised President Donald Trump on the pandemic even though she is not a doctor, once leaned on that same IHME model to support the same baseless claims about social distancing.

The initial, relatively low IHME projections, she contended in her commentary, meant the experts were wrong: The country did not have to establish a robust testing and tracing program before governments relaxed social distancing and opened the economy.

“And we’re going to then like, keep America closed till we have 7 million tests a day or a week or whatever the heck the new number is?” she asked in mid-April. “I mean, that’s — people have to think about that. I mean, think about whether it’s even achievable before Election Day.”

They’ve managed to enlist the assistance of some of their own victims by offering them a little piece of the action, or promising them an even bigger piece, later on, if they just work hard, follow the rules and don’t cause trouble. “Be patient, and soon you’ll be able to join us.”

But each day the promise slips further into the future, and the grim reality becomes more obvious to anyone who has not wagered his destiny on it.