I just think it's a joke that the EFL are letting the clubs decide. They'll all just vote for what suits them. Even if Rotherham had all the money in the world for tests etc and were convinced that there was no risk whatsoever from playing, they would vote to end the season because it looks likely to give them promotion. They won't think of integrity, or the good of the game, they'll vote to suit their club (and fair enough, we'd go mad if we were in their position and voted to continue). Equally mid table clubs will see any extra cost as being undesirable, so they'll say to stop even if they can comfortably afford it. That's not what this is supposed to be about.
The EFL themselves should , in theory, be impartial. They should be genuinely concerned about the integrity of the competition. They also seem to know a lot about the financial position of the clubs (not sure how true it is but I remember Donald saying that he'd need to speak to them if he spent a fair bit on wages because they were monitoring it for SCMP) so presumably they have a good idea of what a "reasonable" cost would be. They can see how much it would cost to resume and if it will put a number of clubs at risk, fair enough, they might decide to curtail the season.
I don't see why they aren't taking this information and making the decision. If they did that and it didn't suit us, fair enough, I could live with that. Not getting the chance to complete simply because some are already going up and can't be arsed, some might be happy with their play off place and can't be arsed, others are avoiding relegation and can't be arsed, and others are mid table so can't be arsed, will piss me off quite considerably. Safety first and then cost in terms of whether it will risk clubs' futures should be all that they consider, and the EFL should be best placed to make that call