You think it'll have a similar effect on developed nations as the swine flu? I don't know man, 90% mortality rate...
Ebola has 1 big pro, and 2 insanely big cons
The pro is that it only gets transmitted by direct contact with bodily fluids. And the incubation time is usually relatively short. This means on one hand its quite the issue for developping country's who wish to do the ritual funerals, instead of burning, allowing it to spread.
On the other side, its relatively easy to quarantine in regions where the population understands "83% mortality rate regardless of threatment when discovered
after incubation time.
You see, unlike the flu, ebola needs to have passed to the next stage to infect its next victim. This means one victim cannot directly infect everyone it encounters at first,
but it will do that when a few days have passed. This is the current issue, with locals hiding infected people and corpses allowing it to spread and build up to spread more.
If you directly quarantine anyone who came in contact with the victim, and do the japaneese way (with the flu back then) to forbid shaking hands etc and not touch others, the virus simply cannot spread.
Not touching strangers literally means the disease cannot spread.
What are the cons ?
1) It has the second highest mortality rate ever after threatment for a micro organism , with only Primary amebic meningoencephalitis from Naegleria fowleri surpassing it.
2) Unlike spanish flu or the plague, like rabies, ebola can survive in other hosts then humans, without harming them, wich means they effectively got a plan b that makes it impossible to excinct them like we did with small pocks.
Rabies is carried by foxes. Ebola is carried by something else, wich at this point is unknown. You might read "bats" but thats batshit stupid. "when they dont know they'll say bats are the hosts" , quote from university of antwerp's virology professor.