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.

Part of philosophy is to subject assertions to critical scrutiny, clarifying exactly what the assertion is saying, its implications, and thus its direct plausibility. The goal is to ensure clarity, logical consistency, and rational argumentation in order to arrive at reasoned conclusions. A common problem is that arguments have missing implied premises that, unless explicitly stated, are mistakenly assumed to be true. Here we subject conclusions made regarding the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic to critical scrutiny, revealing their implied premises so that these premises can be explicitly examined and refuted. Specifically, we refute the conclusions that “no one is protected until everyone is protected” and “population lockdowns are required to protect those at high risk of adverse outcomes.” In the end, we argue for the conclusion that “an Emergency Management principles based response to the pandemic, compared to population-wide lockdowns, offers a way to prevent more adverse outcomes from COVID-19, better prevent overwhelmed healthcare, and prevent most of the collateral damage to the wellbeing of the population that has resulted from the lockdowns.”