Disasters are among the crises that can test the decision making skill of elected and appointed public officials from planning through response and recovery. The COVID-19 crisis, a public health emergency rather than one with immediate damage to the built environment, has affected many aspects of community life. Experiences in responding to the pandemic will likely stimulate fresh planning initiatives for public health emergencies. How then should emergency planners approach planning and response tasks? The All-Hazards approach has been a mainstay of both research and policymaking for over 40 years, but it has come under recent criticism. In this paper, we consider if the All-Hazards approach to disaster management is still viable. Comparing the management needs that emerged in the pandemic with those of disasters from more familiar hazard agents, we conclude that the All-Hazards approach is valid and can continue to guide policymakers in their hazard and disaster management activities.

中文翻译：

---

任何其他名称的灾难？：COVID-19 和对所有危害方法的支持

灾难是可以考验民选和任命的公职人员从规划到响应和恢复的决策能力的危机之一。COVID-19 危机是一场公共卫生紧急事件，而不是立即对建筑环境造成破坏的危机，它影响了社区生活的许多方面。应对大流行的经验可能会激发针对突发公共卫生事件的新计划举措。那么应急计划人员应该如何处理计划和响应任务呢？40 多年来，All-Hazards 方法一直是研究和决策的支柱，但它最近受到了批评。在本文中，我们考虑了灾害管理的全危害方法是否仍然可行。将大流行中出现的管理需求与更熟悉的危险因素造成的灾害进行比较，