Well, now that one hospital clearly botched things up and sent an ebola positive patient home, you can bet every other hospital will avoid that gaffe by going too far in the other direction.
I expect we will start seeing more ebola cases in the US, though, so it isn't a bad thing to be particularly careful.
Still, I don't think we're going to see an outbreak here. Isolated cases, with perhaps a small spread among family and healthcare workers.
What I'm really interested to find out is whether we will be able to save a significant number of those who fall ill in the US. Ebola seems scary because of the high rate of mortality, but that's because it occurs most often in regions with inadequate healthcare and sanitation practices. If, in the US, ebola has a significantly reduced mortality, even down to one in ten (which is still huge by our standards), then the public would breath a sigh of relief, and worry significantly less about it.
Further, the experimental vaccine may pave the way for resolving the issue entirely. It won't be needed in the US, only those areas of the world where natural ebola reservoirs exist (bats in south america are thought to be the main reservoir).
Hey, if you want to start a conspiracy theory, though, here's a beginning: GlaxoSmithKline started developing their ebola vaccine in 2013. But there's not a lot of money in a vaccine that's not needed, and of course they had ebola cultures for their internal use. Further, drug trials are annoying, particularly human drug trials, expecially when you have a drug/vaccine that no one actually needs.
So find a family in the region where ebola is often found who have poor sanitation practices, infect them, and suddenly the WHO appears on your doorstep asking how they can hep you fast track your ebola vaccine.
And because everyone hates big pharma, this conspiracy theory would take off like a rocket.