Who is Rick Santelli? Fiery exchange erupts on CNBC over social distancing

A heated exchanged between two CNBC on-air employees erupted Friday over social distancing and shutting down restaurants during the coronavirus pandemic.

Rick Santelli, a CNBC editor who is largely credited with helping spark the tea party movement in 2009, said that restaurants shouldn’t be shut down when big box retailers are still open, drawing disagreement from CNBC host Andrew Ross Sorkin.

“You can’t tell me that shutting down, which is the easiest answer, is the only answer,” Santelli said.

“Rick, just as a public health and public service announcement for the audience, the difference between a big box retailer,” Sorkin responded, before Santelli cut him off, asking “Who is this?”

The two hosts were speaking from different locations, along with five other CNBC guests and hosts.

“The difference between a big box retailer, and a restaurant or frankly even a church, are so different it’s unbelievable,” Sorkin continued.

The two then began shouting over each other, with Santelli responding: “I disagree, I disagree. I disagree. You can have your thoughts, and I can have mine.”

Sorkin said: “You’re required to wear a mask. It’s science. I’m sorry, it’s science.”

“It’s not science,” Santelli responded. “Five hundred people in a mall aren’t any safer than 150 people in a restaurant that holds 600. I don’t believe it. Sorry, I don’t believe it. And I live in an area where there are a lot of restaurants that have fought back and they don’t have any problems and they’re open.”

“Well you don’t have to believe it, but you’re doing a disservice to the viewer,” Sorkin responded. Santelli then said, “You’re doing a disservice to the viewer. You are. You are.”

“I’m sorry, I would like to keep our viewers as healthy as humanly possible. The idea of packing people in restaurants,” Sorkin said.

“I think our viewers are smart enough to make part of those decisions on their own,” Santelli said, cutting him off.

Santelli previously sparked controversy for his comments in March suggesting that people should get infected with the virus in order to save the economy.

“But maybe we’d be just better off if we gave it to everybody, and then in a month it would be over because the mortality rate of this probably isn’t going to be any different if we did it that way than the long-term picture, but the difference is we’re wreaking havoc on global and domestic economies,” he said at the time, according to MarketWatch.