Logic analysis of how the emergency management legal system used to deal with public emerging infectious diseases under balancing of competing interests—the case of covid-19

Abstract

Development of measures for mitigating public emerging infectious diseases is now a focal point for emergency management legal systems. COVID-19 prevention and containment policies can be considered under the core goal of social and individual interests. In this study we analyzed the complexity between individual and public interests as they conflict when implementing disease preventative measures on an epidemic scale. The analysis was used to explore this complex landscape of conflicting social, public, and legal interests to quantify the potential benefits of public acceptance. Here we use the large-scale COVID-19 epidemic backdrop to examine legal norms of the emergency management legal framework. We find that the implementation of emergency management legal system measures involves the resolution of both direct and indirect conflicts of interest among public groups, individual groups, and various subsets of each. When competing interests are not balanced, optimal policies cannot be achieved to serve and safeguard shared social and community stability, whereas effective social outcomes are obtainable through the development of targeted policies as defined within the emergency management legal system. A balanced legal framework in regards to emergency management legal norms can more effectively serve to mitigate and prevent the continued spread of emerging infectious diseases. Further developing innovative procedural mechanisms as a means to ensure emergency response intervention should take into account the weighted interest of the different social parties to determine priorities and aims to protect legitimate public interests.