But ideally the government should be preventative in its approach, provide the means of evacuation for those who lack the means themselves and get word out that that is available. People in the No Column seem to assume that everyone is physically capable of evacuating. That's not always the case.
Mandatory evacuation exists to save the greatest number of people from being at the point of impact of severe weather; however, not everyone is physically capable of evacuation. Some people have health or mobility issues that make timely evacuation difficult if not impossible. Remaining in place during a severe weather event is safer than being caught on the road in an ambulance or other emergency vehicle. Because of this, people who shelter in place should still be eligible for aid.
Insufficient attention has been given to the ethical and legal questions surrounding mandatory evacuation in disasters and emergencies. We argue that mandatory evacuation orders entail a governmental duty both to provide for people and to decide for people: Government must trigger the provision of critical resources as well as vigorous and persistent efforts to persuade reluctant citizens to leave. Public health professionals, with their experience in weighing costs and risks in the face of uncertainty and balancing individual liberties with the need to protect the common welfare, offer a unique perspective that should be brought to bear in emergencies and disasters.
Government has an obligation not only to help people in an emergency but also to take decisive, although strictly limited, steps to remove them from harm’s way.
If you stay in a danger zone, you have been warned against the risks, and if you cannot deal with it, you should not stay. The government cannot help people too blind to escape from a zone with risks to life and property. A law is needed here to stop a problem.
No, aid should not be provided to those who fail to follow mandatory evacuation, because that will stop the government or those providing aid from providing it to those who listened in the first place. Those who failed to follow mandatory evacuation have no on but themselves to blame, and they stayed because they thought they could handle it themselves.
The government is not your go to thing for aid. If the weatherman tells you a tornado is headed your way, then leave. If they say a flood is imminent, then leave. It's really simple. Take some damn responsibility for yourselves for a change and stop expecting the government to help.
No, resources should definitely be directed to those who followed orders or couldn't be warned in time first; however, it would be unethical to simply leave the non-compliant to suffer (or possibly die) if the resources are ready and available to help them. That being said, I would support sending them a bill for the aid after the fact.