Vote count so far
 OP 1)  1
OP 2)   4 
OP 3) 10
With 15 votes and from what I think I know of the 9 posters, majority of posters in the +55 age bracket and therefore majority of option 3 votes.

The global economy is in a recession and is currently headed to a path of global depression.  The lone exogenous independent factor that caused this situation is Covid-19; a disease that the human species has never seen nor have any natural immunity.  The hope of returning the global economy to more or less what it was prior to the pandemic primarily depends how fast the planet can develop and implement a safe and reliable vaccine.  From current indications, we can not expect that to happen until sometime next year at the earliest and if we are lucky.

Given these realities, keeping the economy shut down, except for so-called "essential services" is controlled economic suicide, making a global depression inevitable.  An uncontrolled opening of the economy would yield the quickest results in averting an economic depression, at least for some parts of the US, but will run the risk of additional infections, potentially overburdening an ill-supplied American medical response system, and widespread fatalities amongst those most vulnerable to Covid-19.

Given the two opposing lines of thought in the spectrum, the only realistic choice is some version of Option 2.  We have to remember that the US economy is plugged in to the global economy and whatever decision made by the US MUST be more or less in line with what plan and at what stage the rest of the economies of the World are in and have decided to do.  With additional catastrophic human and economic consequences potentially resulting from a misalignment of the decision by every nation to reopen the global economy, some version of Option 2 is the only choice that will allow the US and any other country the flexibility to make their own short-term decisions to what's in the best interest for their people.

I no longer have to work with Liberals, so I
can take a strong stand for my beliefs.
I'd rather be free and dead, than a slave
and alive.
It is one of the advantages of being an old man.
We aren't as afraid of death as much as we
were when we were 18 year old soldiers.
That is why you "never pick a fight with an old man
he'll just kill you".

I look at it this way, lets compare something that happens like clockwork every year.

Flu
2019 stats USA
35 mill infected
14 mill went to the hospital
400K in ICU
35K deaths
6 month period

So going based on that, why is CV shutting down the US?  And the above happens every year.  CV is new, but still why not see what happens this 1st year and then adjust later.  The economy is just as fragile as people getting sick.

    Option 2 is NOT the only "Realistic" choice and the US is NOT necessarily susceptible to the economic choices of the rest of the world.
As posted, wouldn't  Option 3 not only reduce Social Security by 70%, reduce Medicare beneficiaries by 80%, open up some 4 million primarily non-physically labor intensive jobs and open up not only housing but the housing market ?
   
    Without these burdens and newly created opportunities, wouldn't the US become stronger and with opening the economy by getting back to work ahead of all others, would we not have a gigantic head start on all other nations who are still in options 1 or 2 ?

    I can only guess at some of the age of posters voting, but can definitely see the majority voting for option 3 are in the 55+ age bracket.
Realist's, Fathers, Patriots or Suicidal Senile ?

That's all potentially true.
The only problem is the fact that the majority of the US has undertaken shut downs, mask use, and socials distancing, whose effects have yet to be comprehensively analyzed and determined what part it played, if any, with the reduced infection and death numbers that most computer models predicted from a county/city, state, region, and nationwide level.
These "models" have already been  "analyzed" and "determined" to be 80%  incorrect from the original "models" which  predicted deaths of millions WITH preventative measures

Until a reliable and valid investigation is conducted, an option 3 2 approach or returning to business as usual with no restrictions might also lead to unwarranted consequences that no one really knows,

Option 3 lays out VERY probable results based on facts which show definite benefits, aside from a quicker, yet ultimately predicted death count in option  2.
Option 1 has way too many variables but would definitely be a worse outcome than options 2 or 3.

These "models" have already been  "analyzed" and "determined" to be 80%  incorrect from the original "models" which  predicted deaths of millions WITH preventative measures

Any model that is introduced is just a theoretical model that needs to be measured against empirical evidence.  Thus far, I agree that those original models has proven largely inaccurate.  However, just because those models failed to accurately predict an outcome, that does not summarily conclude that an Option 3 approach is the way to go.



Option 3 lays out VERY probable results based on facts which show definite benefits, aside from a quicker, yet ultimately predicted death count in option  2.
Option 1 has way too many variables but would definitely be a worse outcome than options 2 or 3.

What are these facts you reference?  Are these facts based on the empirical findings of the Covid-19 situation in a state in the US, nationwide, some other countries, or the entire World.   The reason I ask is because Covid-19 is a virus the human species has never encountered before; hence, it would be premature and dangerous to think that those wanting for a rapid Option 3 type reopening of the economy can make any DEFINITIVE conclusions about the causes, symptoms, short/long term effects, treatments, and preventive measures at this time.



Again, look at Sweden

Yes, I agree.  Their situation is a unique one, whose empirical results must be studied and analyzed.  We need to see whether their geographic location, weather patterns, homogeneity of their population, social interaction norms, overall health and wellness, rates of poverty, and etc. had anything to do with the current results in that nation before using their situation as proof for an Option 3 type decision for anywhere else. 



And of course and as usual in your Beto-esque style, you did not answer  questions.

Your opinion.

Are you a medical researcher by the way?

Any model that is introduced is just a theoretical model that needs to be measured against empirical evidence.  Thus far, I agree that those original models has proven largely inaccurate.  However, just because those models failed to accurately predict an outcome, that does not summarily conclude that an Option 3 approach is the way to go.
These "models" have already been  "analyzed" and "determined" to be 80%  less than the original "models" which  predicted deaths of millions WITH preventative measures           
Those models do not "summarily conclude that" the Option 2 "approach is the way to go" either.
I never stated Option 3 was the way to go but was rebutting your statement that "  the only realistic choice is some version of Option 2." and "some version of Option 2 is the only choice".         
Option 3 lays out VERY probable results based on facts which show definite benefits, aside from a quicker, yet ultimately predicted death count in option  2.
Option 1 has way too many variables but would definitely be a worse outcome than options 2 or 3.[/b]

What are these facts you reference?  Are these facts based on the empirical findings of the Covid-19 situation in a state in the US, nationwide, some other countries, or the entire World. 
Facts are are not empirical and are based upon current and historical CDC, SS, and Medicare research as well as current Covid-19  actual  EXISTINGUS infection, hospitalization and deaths records.

The reason I ask is because Covid-19 is a virus the human species has never encountered before; hence, it would be premature and dangerous to think that those wanting for a rapid Option 3 type reopening of the economy can make any DEFINITIVE conclusions about the causes, symptoms, short/long term effects, treatments, and preventive measures at this time.
Covid -19 is only the latest of Covid viruses and your above opinion of reopening of the economy would be the same for option 2

Again, look at Sweden

Yes, I agree.  Their situation is a unique one, whose empirical results must be studied and analyzed.  We need to see whether their geographic location, weather patterns, homogeneity of their population, social interaction norms, overall health and wellness, rates of poverty, and etc. had anything to do with the current results in that nation before using their situation as proof for an Option 3 type decision for anywhere else. 
Their situation is not unique, Brazil is doing the same and has similar results. Both countries appear to have "peaked" in infections and deaths. Sweden's population of about 10.2 million — has seen 15,322 cases and 1,765 deaths from the virus so far, making the death rate per capita at 17.3 deaths per 100,000.  As for geographic location,  Sweden recorded more than 4,000 cases and 146 deaths with it's "open" system  compared to Denmark's 2,555 cases and 77 deaths, and Norway's 4,300 cases and 31 deaths, both who lockdown. Denmark and Norway have similar populations of around 5 million; Sweden's is twice that.
These numbers back up my "facts" regarding death count


And of course and as usual in your Beto-esque style, you did not answer  questions.
Your opinion.

Are you a medical researcher by the way?
Yes, was previously schooled, trained and employed as Biomedical Engineer in hemotologic environments

Again (and as usual  )  you did not answer my questions.
I've answered yours, give me the courtesy to  answer mine.

No more time for trolling 02Tango, Buh-bye.    Information also available on internet, research

As posted, wouldn't  Option 3 not only reduce Social Security by 70%, reduce Medicare beneficiaries by 80%, open up some 4 million primarily non-physically labor intensive jobs and open up not only housing but the housing market?
   
If some version of Option 3 was implemented and assuming the die-off in your scenario takes place, the discretionary income of most consumers have already been negatively affected on a global scale.  Consumer confidence is very low and will remain low until a safe and reliable vaccine is found.  Even if everyone is open for business right now, it would be a miracle if the entire population ignores all what has happened and go on consuming and investing as usual.  Don't get me wrong, there would be consumer spending and investment, but no way near the rates to achieve recovery in the near term. 

As for the housing market, Inspector, is the senior expert in this area.  However, for the same reason mentioned above, in my view, everyone except the ultra-wealthy will be weary of engaging because of the financial and employment uncertainty caused by Covid-19.  Hence, I can see a housing market bubble crash that will require another trillion dollar bailout, similar to what Obama done in 2008.



Without these burdens and newly created opportunities, wouldn't the US become stronger and with opening the economy by getting back to work ahead of all others, would we not have a gigantic head start on all other nations who are still in options 1 or 2 ?

Of course, the earlier a nation takes actions to recover from Covid-19, the faster to normalcy it can reach.  However, this might not necessarily be the case for the US, as I see two main reasons for this.  First, the entire US economy, the World's #1 economy, has been affected with unemployment at all time highs in many places.  Hence, the recovery time for the US will take much longer than smaller economies.  Second, should a second wave or third wave of Covid-19 hit the US, the worse the US economy will suffer, compared to a much slower restarting of the economy that could better absorb those exogenous shocks.



I can only guess at some of the age of posters voting, but can definitely see the majority voting for option 3 are in the 55+ age bracket.
Realist's, Fathers, Patriots or Suicidal Senile?

For those favoring Option 3, I understand and sympathize with their rationale and motivation; but I stand with some version of Option 2, since I would never want to see any of our seniors suffer and die-off, if there was another, albeit, painful way available to choose.