Secretary of State John Kerry discussing U.S. response to Ebola on Oct. 8, 2014. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

(CNSNews.com) - State Department Spokeswoman Jen Psaki would not directly respond Thursday to a question from CNSNews.com asking her how many American Ebola victims would be an acceptable price for the American people to pay for the administration’s policy of allowing people to travel to the United States from three Ebola-stricken countries in West Africa—without even putting them through a quarantine period.

On Wednesday, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Department of Homeland Security announced a new policy for dealing with travelers entering this country from Sierra Leone, Liberia and Guinea, which are currently experiencing an Ebola epidemic.

Under this policy, travelers from these countries will be checked on arrival at five U.S. international airports to see if they have a fever or are exhibiting symptoms of Ebola. They will also be questioned to see if they admit having had contact with an Ebola victim.

If a traveler from one of the Ebola-effected nations shows no symptoms of the disease and does not admit to having had contact with an Ebola victim, he or she will be admitted to the United States and allowed to move around the country freely.

It will then take 21 days for the U.S. government to know for certain whether the asymptomatic person they admitted to the country is infected with Ebola or not.

150 people from the Ebola-stricken nations arrive in the United States each day, according to the CDC.

The late Thomas Eric Duncan, a Liberian national who arrived in the United States last month and then became the first person to be diagnosed inside the United States with Ebola, did not have symptoms of the disease when he left Liberia or when he arrived in the United States, the CDC says. He only began to show symptoms "four or five days" after he arrived, the CDC said, and only began getting treatment eight days after he arrived.

The CDC subsequently began monitoring 48 people in the United States for signs of Ebola. These included ten people that the CDC said had contact with Duncan, and 38 it could not rule out had had contact with Duncan.

When a homeless man who, according to the New York Times, had ridden in the same ambulance in which Duncan had earlier been conveyed to the hospital—but before it was cleaned—went missing last Sunday, Texas authorities tracked him down. Then, according to the Associated Press, Texas authorities ordered this homeless American into quarantine.

“The illness has an average 8-10 day incubation period (although it ranges from 2 to 21 days),” says the CDC. “CDC recommends monitoring exposed people for symptoms a complete 21 days. People are not contagious after exposure unless they develop symptoms.”

Because the virus has this 21-day incubation period, the new policy implemented by the CDC and DHS will not allow the U.S. government to know for certain whether the people it is allowing to enter the United States from the Ebola-stricken countries of Africa are carrying the virus. Like Duncan, they may be carrying it and not yet showing symptoms.

At a briefing on Wednesday, Dr. Frieden presented what amounted to a cost-benefit analysis to explain why the CDC had decided to allow people who were not showing symptoms—but could be carrying Ebola—to enter the United States from the West African countries suffering the Ebola epidemic.

He pointed to both financial and health costs Americans could incur if the U.S. did not allow asymptomatic people travelling from Ebola-stricken countries to enter the United States. He made no mention of--and offered not cost-benefit type analysis of--allowing people from Ebola-stricken countries to enter the United States, but only after they had undergone a quarantine period covering the known incubation period of the virus.

“We recognize that whatever we do, until the outbreak is over in West Africa, we can't get the risk to zero in this country,” Dr. Frieden said.

“We have to ensure that whatever we do doesn't unintentionally increase the risk that we will be at risk,” he said. “Just to remind us of what happened a decade ago in the SARS outbreak. The SARS outbreak cost the world more than $40 billion, but it wasn't to control the outbreak. Those were costs from unnecessary and ineffective travel restrictions and trade changes that could have been avoided. What we want to do is ensure that we don't undermine our ability to stop the outbreak at its source and unintentionally increase our risk here.”

When a reporter asked Dr. Frieden to elaborate on the $40-billion cost incurred during the SARs outbreak, Frieden said the following: “In terms of the costs of SARS, many of those costs were related to people canceling travel, to trade restrictions, or to trade that didn't occur. And I have to say, I've spoken with business leaders who have emphasized to me that there's so many misconceptions about Ebola that they're already seeing things like a reduction in investment in parts of Africa that are not in any way, shape, or form involved in the Ebola outbreak. So, we're concerned that if we don't ensure that we focus on what works and do that well, we may have that same kind of unnecessary and counterproductive cost here.”

On Wednesday, Secretary of State Kerry said of U.S. efforts to contain the Ebola outbreak: "We need airlines to continue to operate in West Africa and we need borders to remain open."

In light of Kerry's remarks and Dr. Frieden’s cost-benefit analysis supporting the government’s policy of allowing people from Ebola-stricken regions to enter the United States without even going through a quarantine period, CNSNews.com asked State Department Spokeswoman this question on Thursday:

“When measured in terms of American lives that might be affected by this--American lives lost or permanently altered by Ebola--is there a point at which that cost-benefit analysis tips and it would be seen as a mistake to have let people to travel here without a quarantine period? Is it one American contracting Ebola? Is it five? Is it ten? At what point would the policy have to be reexamined and seen as imprudent?”

Psaki’s response did not say how many American Ebola victims would be an acceptable number.

She said: “Well, one, I think what you’re referring to in part is some of the new announcements that were made by the White House or are in the process of being made about measures that are being put into place to screen over 94 percent of passengers arriving from Ebola-affected Western African countries. We continue to take steps and evaluate what steps that can be taken to, of course, not only protect American citizens but continue to treat--do everything we can to address this outbreak.

“And I would also note,” Psaki continued, “that Dr. Frieden has also made comments that by isolating these countries, it would make it harder to help them. It will spread more there, and we’d be likely to be exposed more here. So there are reasons for finding ways to address this and address it in ways that are – don’t intervene as – with passengers, while still allowing these countries to travel.

CNSNews.com then asked this followup: “But if the policy is to allow people who have been in Ebola-stricken regions to enter the United States without a quarantine period, is there an acceptable number of Americans that could be exposed to the Ebola virus for that reason? Is there an acceptable number?

Psaki said: “I think the CDC has addressed this, as have I. I’m going to move on because I just have another moment.”

In response to a question posed by a reporter from the Associated Press, Psaki said that the State Department has not changed its procedures for issuing visas to people travelling to the United States from Ebola-stricken country.

“Are the embassies in the three countries that are most affected still processing all visa applications?” a reporter asked.

“Yes, they are,” she said.