If half a dozen people are kept off of every plane and quarantined, that's thousand of people a day. That's an overburdened health care staff. I have more sympathy for the problem.
I'm talking about a nurse who already knew she had spent days treating a patient who died from Ebola and who made several telephone calls to the CDC advising them that she felt feverish, who at a hospital that had already screwed up badly when that patient first presented, and whose administrators changed their story about this multiple times.
How you manage to ignore these additional risk factors and conclude that I was talking about screen all fliers is just beyond me. I believe I made the context abundantly clear: When dealing with the limited subset of people who had contact with known Ebola carrier at the Texas hospital (a total of 76 medical personnel AFAIK), the slight economic cost of limiting travel and monitoring all of them for a few weeks seems low compared to the new situation.
I believe it to be a good sign for the republic that the government has not resorted to do so.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/16/us/ebola-outbreak-texas.ht...
Check out the prefatory language of IETF RFCs, they generally give you a run down of these sorts of words.
Would it have been wise to quarantine her and keep her from traveling? in hindsight definitely.
Is it justifiable to restrict one's individual freedom on such a weak basis as "she's not feeling well, but is below the temperature threshold established by experts"? Here you can IMHO lean either way. If you are more utilitarian, you might argue for it. If you are more about individual rights, you might argue against it.
There, now your question is factually complete.