If you're using probabilities as your guide, your argument is already lost. As the odds of the type of hysteric 'plague' being imagined is ridiculously, almost laughably low.
Which the CDC seems fully aware of. I'm glad the CDC is making decisions based on rational assessment rather than mindless emotion.
The only acceptable instance of a disease that has a 90% fatality rate and a quick-spread contagion is 0%. We must allow 0% of ebola sufferers off a plane or boat into the New World.
Save of course that Ebola isn't quick spreading, it has a survivability rate of closer to 40% with treatment, and the lone individual that has it is under biohazard quarantine. Rendering the odds of even one other individual catching the disease from him astronomically low. Like winning the lottery while on a crashing plane and being mauled by a bengal tiger low.
And of course, we've had the ebola virus in the United States for over a decade. If the panty shitting hysterics you've described were even remotely plausible, it would have happened already. Your fear is irrational because it ignores all of this.
The '0%' scenario that you describe would mandate no flights to the US from any destination, ever, nor any cross border travel by anyone. Ever. As any passenger or border crosser technically 'could' be carrying a deadly pathogen. Further, your 0% solution would have to be taken further, because Ebola is already here. The first symptoms of Ebola is indistinguishable from the flu.
So to maintain your ludicrous '0%' rule, we'd have to banish or otherwise eliminate anyone who exhibited symptoms even similar to ebola's early stages. Or any other deadly pathogen. Influenza or Pneumonia killed over 50,000 people in the US last year alone. So to preserve American lives, we'd have to rid ourselves of anyone who has symptoms of either disease. Which, unsurprisingly, is indistinguishable from the common cold in their early symptoms.
So we'd have to banish or otherwise eliminate anyone who had so much as a sniffling nose and a sore throat. We wouldn't be a 0%, of course. But we'd be closer than we are now, if by some absurdly small degree.
Or.......we can put on our big boy pants and recognize that the perfect avoidance of any risk just isn't in the cards. And that we can only mitigate risks to a reasonable level.
Which the CDC has done with the *lone* ebola case in the country. A nation, which you'll understand, has already had the ebola virus in it for over a decade. With no outbreaks. Demonstrating that yes, we can make ourselves reasonable safe.
Again, did the US consult with Canada, Central or South America about this "exception" to the fast rule?
What 'fast rule'? The one you imagined?
Remember....ebola has been in the US for quite a while, being studied under conditions similar to the biohazard quarantine the lone doctor is being treated now.
And his condition is improving! That's what treatment can provide.