I haven't tried digging that hard, but one important question that I have yet to see answered is whether this guy's TB was actually at an infectious stage? You can be infected with TB but it's dormant and no risk to anyone, you can have an active case of TB but you're not infectious, and you can have active TB which is infectious because it's in your lungs. I have yet to see a medical professional say that he was infectious to the people around him.
Maybe I'm reading too much into the lack of details of this story in the press, but a lot of people may be villifying him assuming that he was infectious but maybe he wasn't. I know that the authorities are trying to find the other passengers to test them, but it's not clear if that is simply a precaution "just in case", or if they legitimately think he might have spread it.
For example, he was flown to a hospital in Denver today that has respiratory specialists. The paper says that, among other things, that he's going there for CT and MRI scans to determine "how infectious he is". Sounds like it's possible that he was not infectious or maybe only slightly infectious while he was cavorting through Europe.
In addition, his CDC microbiologist father-in-law made the comment to the press, "Had I known that my daughter was in any risk, I would not allow her to travel." To my mind, then, it sounds like this guy wasn't infectious when he left for Europe because the father-in-law let his daughter go. Either that, or else the son-in-law didn't tell him the true extent of his condition (not a good way to start a relationship with your father-in-law...)
Anyway, just wondering if the press hasn't totally overblown this story into another modern-day equivalent of Typhoid Mary.
By the way, for anyone interested, Mr. Daniels in Arizona is still in quarantine. He did get another hearing recently, but I guess his argument wasn't convincing because he's still in the prisoner ward. I think he did get some of this things back, though, like his telephone.