I believe you can argue that she was violating people's rights. You're responsible for your properties. If your dog escapes and hurt the neighbor's son, you're responsible. If your car loses its breaks all of the sudden, while parked, and end up running over some one, you're still responsible, even if you were not driving it. If your factory or nuclear plant leaks pollution and hurt people living nearby, you're responsible. And so on.
Mary was responsible for her body. Her body was the transporting a lethal disease. She could be deemed responsible.
I feel that I agree that a disease in you body is your own property since it is an invader. A guy trespassing in my house might kill a guest there, but I don't think that I'm responsible. It would be different if Mary intentionally infected herself to then go on and intentionally infect others, but in this case she didn't even know.
I know a real case of a disgusting man who knew he had AIDS, and still would convince his sexual partners to drop the condom, obviously lying about his health situation.
And this would be a situation where he defrauded the women he was with, similar to if Mary was asked if she tested positive for some disease and fraudulently claimed not.
I just don't feel that the presence of the sick should in any way be taken as an immediate violation of the NAP.