In the face of a uniquely dangerous threat, we Americans have trouble recalibrating our traditional (and laudable) devotion to individual rights and civil liberties. That is the fundamental reason we've been so slow in getting serious about Ebola. Consider:

1. Privacy: Pham's identity was initially withheld. In normal circumstances, privacy deserves absolute respect. But these are not normal circumstances. We're talking about a possible epidemic by an unseen pathogen that kills 70 percent of its victims. Contact tracing is the key to stopping it, we've been told. What faster way to alert anyone who might have had contact with Pham than releasing her name? Why lose 24 hours during which people have to guess if they'd had contact with someone carrying the virus?

2. Quarantine: When Duncan was first hospitalized, the CDC said it would locate his contacts and check regularly for symptoms. For the secondary and tertiary contacts this made sense. But not for those in the inner "concentric circle." They had had close contact with Duncan and were living in an apartment requiring massive decontamination. They should have been quarantined immediately.

Yet initially they were not. In fact, the word quarantine was not uttered by a single authority during the first news conference revealing Duncan's illness.

It's understandable. Quarantine is the ultimate violation of civil liberties. Having committed no crime, having done no wrong, you are sentenced to house arrest or banishment. It's unfair. It's, well, un-American. But when an epidemic threatens, we do it because we must.

3. Evacuation: Why have we been treating Ebola patients at their local hospital? This is insane. They don't have the expertise or the training. They will make mistakes -- as we've now seen repeatedly at Texas Health Presbyterian.

http://www.newsday.com/opinion/violate-these-civil-liberties-to-prevent-ebola-charles-krauthammer-1.9512485