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.