Interesting way of looking at things. Neither of the two are actually what would provide optimal balance between safety and viability at this time?
Forget balance. Neither is feasible nor viable. Let's face it: when people are getting sick and dying all around you, there is no normal. Look at Sweden. The people are social distancing on their own, trying to maintain some semblance of normalcy, and their economy is still projected to crater. Additionally, they are facing sickness and death every day, and we've all witnessed the effects that can have on families and communities (and businesses).
As for lockdown, it's just not physically possible in the free world. The closest anyone in the world got was in Wuhan, with reports of doors being welded shut, and look at the pile of bodies there. Not to mention the rumors of a second wave starting there... But can you imagine an actual total lockdown in any country that even hints at being a democracy?
The best examples of success we've seen involve the country essentially closing it's borders to outsiders, and people giving up a lot of personal freedoms for a chance to live a life that vaguely resembles normal. GPS tracking, contact tracing, temperature checks before entering buildings, mandatory masks, and more.
I've ranted about this before, because I think the effects of extreme rhetoric are a massive impediment to productive dialog and finding actual solutions. Neither extreme is on the table, so the language needs to be cut out of the discussion.