Safe, not sorry: There are drawbacks, sure, but quarantine is a good idea

It is only going to take one mistake -- one missed sign, one dishonest traveler, one person who decides he or she knows better.

It takes only one bureaucrat who did not do his or her homework or one mutation that a scientist did not see coming.

It only takes one politician bowing to pressure or a leader parroting information that he is not really sure is true.

Or it could be a deliberate act -- an enemy combatant who figures that his or her jihad might be setting a deadly disease loose into the U.S. population as he or she wanders across an unprotected and unmonitored border.

It doesn't matter how it starts or the path by which it ends up in a school, a neighborhood or an airport. We know one thing for sure -- Ebola is deadly, and it takes a tremendous amount of care and skill to make sure it does not spread or claim thousands of lives.

Of course we don't think it could happen here. After all, we have mega-medical facilities, top-rated doctors and epidemiologists and experts who are conversant in these matters.

And yet, it did happen here.

Truth is, we do not know enough about the disease to absolutely guarantee that we can track it, contain it and treat it effectively every single time.

So, no matter how many times we tell people that precautions are not necessary and that they cannot catch Ebola from casual contact, that the population is safe, the truth is, we do not really know, not for sure.

What not too many people are talking about is that there are African countries that have managed to make sure Ebola has not spread into their communities. And they have included quarantines in their plans.

So it is not irresponsible or unreasonable to ask that those who travel to these nations that are at risk -- volunteers or not -- that they be asked to follow the rules when they return home.

Perhaps a fund could be set up to compensate them for the waiting period. Maybe they could telecommute or receive a tax credit for the time they lose while waiting for the all-clear.

It is an inconvenience, that is for sure. But is it worth the extra care? We think so.

There are some who are concerned that such a quarantine period will keep volunteers from heading to West Africa. That lack of manpower, they say, will greatly weaken the efforts to control the disease at its genesis.

But there are ways to get around that, too. Include the quarantine period in the volunteer hours and give special dispensation to those who choose to make the journey.

We certainly have spent on much dumber things in the last six years -- at least this expenditure would have a measurable benefit.

These are medical professionals, so they should know -- the most vulnerable people are those who are being treated in a hospital. What if they missed a sign and transmitted a deadly disease? What if their own treatment were delayed and they put their families and friends in danger?

The bottom line is that the problem with Ebola is not what we know, but what we do not know. We have no vaccine, no means to protect a vulnerable population, no way to know for sure that every case can be contained.

And until we do know -- and have a real treatment that protects Americans from infection -- we should err on the side of caution no matter how many people it inconveniences or how much consternation it causes.

Published in Editorials on October 28, 2014 10:56 AM