If she had exposure to Ebola, then she should be quarantined until the 21 day window has closed. I don't give a rat's hairy ***, a fiddler's ****, or a whoop-di-freaking-do if she feels sad that she has no television and limited cell reception. The possibility that you COULD potentially infect numerous people trumps whatever 'rights' you feel have been 'imposed upon'.
She says she feels fine, but I'm sure the dead guy in Texas felt fine at first as well. And if you end up being Ebola-free, then just thank your lucky stars that you DIDN'T have it and continue on with your life, no matter how shallow it is.
That's the whole point. She is ebola-free. She's not symptomatic, and she's tested negative for the virus.
According to everything we know about ebola, and we know it pretty well, she is not a risk.
If you start quarantining people who medical science says are not risks, where do you stop? Why do you pick the 21-day window? That window is established by the same medical science that says she is not a risk of contagion. If you reject the latter conclusion, why do you accept the former?
If your answer is "never can be too safe," then why not quarantine the entire city of Dallas, TX for a year? Nobody in, nobody out. Federal troops on all the roads in and out with shoot-to-kill orders. After all, you never can be too safe, enit?
Once you've rejected what medical science has to say about it, there is no logical or reasonable limit.
