I am merely suggesting that it is not an outrageous request on the part of the government to have a 21 day quarantine for those who have been in direct contact with individuals who have a virus with a very low surviveability rate.
And it wouldn't be a big deal if that were based on science and medicine and not politics.
The survivability of ebola in the first world is MUCH greater than if you're in, say, Liberia. So far, given proper treatment, it's 100%. Given the fumbling and mistakes of the 'early' days of this, one person out of 3 has died. Not great but WAY better than the 70% who die in, say, Liberia. And, again, think about that; in Liberia, whatever it is, 3rd world, 4th, it not only does not kill everyone but, nowhere near everyone even gets it and their culture, their intimate handling of their dead is not being reported; they go out of their way to get infected, not on purpose but, as a matter of how they treat their dead, and nowhere near everyone who does so gets it.
So, on top of that, if it were remotely as contagious as a mandatory 21 quarantine would suggest, we'd have WAY more cases than we do. WAY more.
On top of that, US troops are being sent there. If it were ANYWHERE near as contagious as suggested, that, simply, would not be happening.
On top of that, the science and medicine, again, says that 21 days is a guideline. 2-12% of cases WILL express AFTER 21 days and somewhere in that number, it has shown to be indefinite. On top of that, many cases express sooner than 21 days which means many cases are NOT infected sooner than 21 days.
Caution is intelligent. Awareness is intelligent. Hysteria, especially for other motives, is not.
The good that is going to come from this when the excitement moves on to the next exciting thing is that more hospitals will be familiar and ready so that that first guy would not have died.
Ebola is highly infectious, is not very contagious and survivability, in the US, unprepared, is VERY good compared to the stats AND will only get better.