The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has caused tragic morbidity and mortality. In attempt to reduce this morbidity and mortality, most countries implemented population-wide lockdowns. Here we show that the lockdowns were based on several flawed assumptions, including “no one is protected until everyone is protected,” “lockdowns are highly effective to reduce transmission,” “lockdowns have a favorable cost-benefit balance,” and “lockdowns are the only effective option.” Focusing on the latter, we discuss that Emergency Management principles provide a better way forward to manage the public emergency of the pandemic. Specifically, there are three priorities including the following: first, protect those most at risk by separating them from the threat (mitigation); second, ensure critical infrastructure is ready for people who get sick (preparation and response); and third, shift the response from fear to confidence (recovery). We argue that, based on Emergency Management principles, the age-dependent risk from SARS-CoV-2, the minimal (at best) efficacy of lockdowns, and the terrible cost-benefit trade-offs of lockdowns, we need to reset the pandemic response. We can manage risk and save more lives from both COVID-19 and lockdowns, thus achieving far better outcomes in both the short- and long-term.

Emergency Management has not developed in a cohesive or comprehensive manner. Differing terms are used to name identical concepts. A standard comprehensive doctrine for the important development of emergency management is needed. In this paper I explain a doctrinal framework for emergency management. The paper states a clear identification of the five dimensions, and each of their components, necessary to the informed practice of Emergency Management. Although emergencies vary in cause and severity, the process of Emergency Management necessary for optimal handling of these emergencies varies little. The “All Hazards Approach” to emergency management establishes and reinforces commonality in processes, procedures, planning templates and organizational structure. The three types of agencies associated with emergency management activities are discussed, including the subject matter agency, coordinating agency, and supporting agency. The four critical functions of emergency management are detailed, and include mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery, often all carried out concurrently. The ten activities, and seven resources of emergency management are highlighted. There are many ways to represent the integration of these five dimensions, to ensure completeness, while ensuring clarity; the two most common are described. When experts in Emergency Management follow the doctrine, they can coordinate all those involved to be sure that all aspects of any hazard are considered, and that all organizations/agencies, functions, activities, and resources of Emergency Management are coordinated and optimally active. Following this process is the only way to ensure the best outcomes from any emergency.

Emergency Management has not developed in a cohesive or comprehensive manner. Differing terms are used to name identical concepts. A standard comprehensive doctrine for the important development of emergency management is needed. In this paper I explain a doctrinal framework for emergency management. The paper states a clear identification of the five dimensions, and each of their components, necessary to the informed practice of Emergency Management. Although emergencies vary in cause and severity, the process of Emergency Management necessary for optimal handling of these emergencies varies little. The “All Hazards Approach” to emergency management establishes and reinforces commonality in processes, procedures, planning templates and organizational structure. The three types of agencies associated with emergency management activities are discussed, including the subject matter agency, coordinating agency, and supporting agency. The four critical functions of emergency management are detailed, and include mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery, often all carried out concurrently. The ten activities, and seven resources of emergency management are highlighted. There are many ways to represent the integration of these five dimensions, to ensure completeness, while ensuring clarity; the two most common are described. When experts in Emergency Management follow the doctrine, they can coordinate all those involved to be sure that all aspects of any hazard are considered, and that all organizations/agencies, functions, activities, and resources of Emergency Management are coordinated and optimally active. Following this process is the only way to ensure the best outcomes from any emergency.

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has caused tragic morbidity and mortality. In attempt to reduce this morbidity and mortality, most countries implemented population-wide lockdowns. Here we show that the lockdowns were based on several flawed assumptions, including “no one is protected until everyone is protected,” “lockdowns are highly effective to reduce transmission,” “lockdowns have a favorable cost-benefit balance,” and “lockdowns are the only effective option.” Focusing on the latter, we discuss that Emergency Management principles provide a better way forward to manage the public emergency of the pandemic. Specifically, there are three priorities including the following: first, protect those most at risk by separating them from the threat (mitigation); second, ensure critical infrastructure is ready for people who get sick (preparation and response); and third, shift the response from fear to confidence (recovery). We argue that, based on Emergency Management principles, the age-dependent risk from SARS-CoV-2, the minimal (at best) efficacy of lockdowns, and the terrible cost-benefit trade-offs of lockdowns, we need to reset the pandemic response. We can manage risk and save more lives from both COVID-19 and lockdowns, thus achieving far better outcomes in both the short- and long-term.

No abstract