>You got some push-back about the precision of showing symptoms or not in other replies.

I wouldn't call it push-back - the responses basically validated the original concern, that you have many people with different functioning immune systems and the idea of presenting with symptoms is not an exact science....and I don't expect that it would be. But I also don't think it belongs in the same sentence with phrases like "zero", or "100%", or "nada". Quite simply, "it does not follow".

>I think the real precision problem is what is known about the disease.

That was actually part of my point in related posts, but I understand and agree.

>1. The consensus among experts who have studied this rare disease is that they *strongly believe* the transmissible stage starts when symptoms appear.
>2. The disease is quite rare, even in Africa, so believing anybody has perfect knowledge of the disease... well, that is just not a reasonable belief.
>3. We do know it is contagious.
>4. No exposure = 0% chance of catching it.

It's the #1 that concerns me most of all. At one point the CDC stated that there was no risk at all of transmission before symptoms present, and later acknowledged it's not an actual guarantee.

As much as I admire the personal courage of people involved with Doctors Without Borders and other similar missions, their general frustration with institutions, establishments, etc. winds up extending into a mild disrespect for the fact that presidents, governors, etc. have an affirmative responsibility for the safety of cities and everyone inside their sovereign borders. Yes, folks, you do read that correctly.

I certainly don't like the idea of quarantine, and Christie has made about a thousand tactical mistakes on this. But I would rather err on the side of safety on this one.