There are reasons the U.S. hasn't enacted a travel ban on countries where Ebola has broken out: It wouldn't work and could actually make things worse, according to health officials.
Still, that's done little to quell growing calls for a moratorium on traffic between the U.S. and the affected regions. Meanwhile, experts broadly disagree on the efficacy of a ban on travelers going to and from Ebola-hit countries.
On Friday, Texas Gov. Rick Perry became the latest politician to call for one for anyone seeking to enter the United States from affected areas of West Africa. Two days earlier, House Speaker John Boehner called on President Barack Obama to issue a temporary travel ban on Ebola-afflicted countries "as doubts about the security of our air travel grow."
The growing furor has moved the needle of public opinion: A Washington Post-ABC News Poll said that 67 percent of Americans support restricting entry to the U.S. to travelers who have been in Ebola-affected countries.
Other countries—most recently including Jamaica, Guyana, Trinidad and Tobago, Colombia, and St.Lucia—have already taken steps to ban travelers from Liberia, Guinea and Sierra Leone, or restrict entry until after a 21-day quarantine. Nigeria, Senegal and Democratic Republic of Congo are also on some of the banned lists.
Read MoreBy the numbers: Ebola in perspective
Still, a host of U.S. officials remain wary of the effectiveness of such a ban, including the White House, which last week cast doubt on such a move.
While the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says it remains open to all effective options that will make Americans safer, "we can't have anything happening right now that slows our ability to stop the epidemic," CDC spokesman Tom Skinner said.
"When some commercial flights stop going into those countries, our people are delayed going in, our people are delayed going out," Skinner said. "When we stop commercial flights in and out of the country, it does not enhance our ability to stop the epidemic."