Is it true that while legal authority may have existed for the quarantine methods, the use of several quarantine measures, often without apparent regard to the particularized risk for which control was required in the SARS cases in Asia and Canada, may have served to undermine public credibility.
This is a very interesting question. For a case like SARS, quarantine was used quite extensively, especially in Toronto, Ontario. The answer you ultimately provide is (of course) your own opinion, but I am happy to provide you with some points that may help you begin to compile your answer:
A key thing to keep in mind is that the amount of information available now related to SARS was not readily available when decisions regarding quarantine were made during the 2003 outbreak. We can only really judge the quarantine actions using hindsight. However, it is by using this same hindsight that the undermining of public credibility is judged.
All information was ammended from the following two articles:
Quarantine And Isolation: Lessons Learned From SARS
A Report to the Centers for Disease Control and ...
A comparison of quarantine methods used in Asia and Toronto during the SARS outbreak in 2003. The discussion includes links to relevant articles and a thorough investigation of public credibility with relation to SARS quarantine.