Point appreciated, but something’s missing:
Ebola is a disease that you can’t wait for symptoms to decide a course of action on - when symptoms get to the point that someone in authority goes “oh, Ebola symptoms! time to do something!”, others have already been exposed (perhaps terminally). Testing for infection pre-symptom has an unacceptably high false-negative rate.
Upshot: you can’t satisfactorily decide that someone from an Ebola hot zone isn’t infected, unless you stick ‘em in quarantine for twice the incubation period.
It’s the medical equivalent of someone waving a gun around in public: prudence dictates taking ‘em down hard & fast _without_ first subjecting the offending item to a chamber check. The risk of death is just too high to not permit society at large from delegating some government agents the power to make & act on such a situation _without_ prior adjudication. In subsequent proceedings, whether the gun was loaded or the patient infected is beside the point: a reasonable person would reasonably conclude prudence dictates immediate action stopping the suspect from further action until confirmation of lack of potential harm.
We’re not talking flu here, lethal in large numbers but harmless in many orders of magnitude more infectees ... we’re talking Ebola with a 50-70% fatality rate. Yes, you come back here from a hot zone, you should take a vacation in a quarantine tent for a couple months (enjoy the downtime with plenty of books & movies, and be freaking thankful you’re alive & well - or well cared for at the slightest onset of symptoms).
I understand the medical case all too well, it is the public policy part that I'm trying to air out. Christie could very easily have had this nurse arrested and held in quarantine, but he chose (wisely, imho) not to. If the state is perceived as acting too harshly, even if it is rational and within their authority, they risk a backlash and may have even bigger problems not only with compliance, but possibly even with policy changes that reduce their authority. So what is the balance? Again, I say let the courts fight it out now to inform the crafting of policy that is prudent, enforceable, and accepted by the governed.
We are screening people from 3 countries. Nigeria is off the list, and they have not yet added Mali (even though ebola is in Mali). But there is an outbreak of Marburg Virus, in Uganda. It is very similar to ebola. We are not screening travelers from other areas of Africa.