The article addresses the so-called airborne nature of Ebola in other species and calls into question whether or not it was truly airborne in those instances. F

The article addresses the so-called airborne nature of Ebola in other species and calls into question whether or not it was truly airborne in those instances. Furthermore, "very nearly airborne" is not a fair characterization. Bodily fluids transmit the disease, and Ebola's particular ability to make people spew lots of virus all over the place from every available orifice seems to be the primary way to spread. The odds of getting droplets in the eye, on a small cut on your skin, etc... as a healthcare worker are very high if someone is spraying virus-laden blood all over the place. But this is not what we're talking about with a truly airborne virus. In the case of an airborne virus like influenza, you have infection via the upper respiratory tract from viral particles that survive for extended amounts of time in aerosols suspended in the air. There is no evidence Ebola can or does spread in this manner. Obviously nobody can predict the future, but viruses that infect via the airway are highly evolved to do so. The article touches on it a bit, but doesn't get into the real specifics. I'm going from memory here, but I recall that in things like the common cold and influenza, the viral proteins have specific humidity, pH, and temperature requirements in order to dock with receptors in just the right part of the airway in order to maximize infection. You don't get that without significant evolutionary pressure which as far as I can tell is totally absent in the current environment. The virus is easily spreading via direct contact with body fluids, so even if it develops an ability to spread by air, this offers little advantage over the plain old bodily fluid route.