Since the cool kids want to continue labeling any who disagree with them as "afraid" despite it being stated explicitly that that is not the reason, I'm going to lay out my position in its entirety.
I AM NOT AFRAID I'M GOING TO CONTRACT EBOLA. In fact, I LOLed for about half a day over this past weekend when I found out an immediate relative of mine canceled their airfare and instead opted for a 17 odd hour drive over two days because they were afraid of Ebola.
My position is based entirely on taking a conservative approach to controlling as many variables as possible as the only strategy for stopping Ebola's spread is breaking the chain of transmission.
There are two possible ways for Ebola to reach the US, importation by either a. a returning healthcare workers or b. a non-healthcare worker.
Option a is a controllable variable. We know when they're coming back (or should at least...), who they are and exactly where they're coming from and going. Those belonging to option b don't have that sort of accompanying information. Therefore, in my mind it's best to control that group as best as possible as they have as great or greater risk of being in contact with an infected individual with no guarantee they weren't exposed.
Controlling that group provides the benefits of:
a. immediate medical attention upon onset of symptoms without
a.1. exposure of additional medical personnel or individuals (ie EMTs or loves ones)
a.2. contamination of multiple locations (ie their living space, ambulance used for transport ect)
a.3. the need to track and monitor contacts, which may not be a complete list
Further, by guaranteeing treatment of a sick individual immediately in an isolation ward, quarantine would
a. guarantee treatment by personnel properly trained with the use of PPE, including how to put it on properly as well as how to take it off properly, and with access to proper PPE
b. guarantee treatment in a facility that is equipped to properly treat the patient
c. guarantee treatment of the individual in a designated area that is
c.1. properly set up to isolate the individual
c.2. has proper procedures and facilities in place to deal with the generated biohazardous waste
I've even stated that a full 21 day quarantine shouldn't be required for individuals who test negative for Ebola by laboratory testing. This is a tough one, however, as I'm not sure how long it takes for a patient to become viremic and would need to see some solid supporting evidence for the specified time frame for which laboratory testing is considered an accurate measure of whether or not an individual is positive for Ebola.
Following these measures would decrease the amount of resources spent by public health agencies in monitoring multiple people and, in the event of a person being positive, it would completely mitigate the need for resources to track a patients contacts and monitor them.
Considering the only way to beat Ebola is to break the chain of transmission, the most stringent procedures for doing so are a must. I feel the above is the most stringent measures and see no benefit in doing it half-assed.
And yes, IMO if only even a handful of people contract it (read no Ebolapocalypse) and there is no wide spread transmission, that constitutes half-assed. Those commenting that it poses no threat to the general population are misguided in the criteria in that we shouldn't be thinking about the general population, but the ways in which it could get to an unlucky few.