Uh why is a person infected with ebola "stupid?"
Also, to spread it you have to bleed on someone, more or less.
One of the foremost ebola researchers just contracted it while wearing a biohazard suit. As did many of his nurses, while wearing biohazard suits.
Sure they probably had a flaw or pinholes or a leak or whatever, but compare that to "you basically have to bleed on somebody." I don't care how many pinholes are in a suit, getting ill through multiples of them anyway is way the hell more contagious than "you have to get bled on" ...
Ebola's mortality rate is probably closer to 60% than the dreaded 90%. Frankly disappointing; I expect more from apocalyptic plagues.
1) This strain is 60%, others are indeed 90%, they just aren't the ones spreading currently.
2) 90% is not necessarily worse. It might very well be that it's spreading more easily BECAUSE it's 60%, allowing people to last longer to get more people sick before dropping dead. The worst pandemics are ones that strike a solid balance between contagious effectiveness AND deadliness (for example, not swine flu -- tons of people got it but not so bad. Not avian flu -- quite bad but didn't spread well. A more balanced mixture together would have wiped out a huge chunk of the population).
Imagine a hypothetical disease that made you catch on fire and disintegrate in 5 seconds 100% of the time. Would that create an apocalypse? No, it would probably only kill like two people, cause it wouldn't spread fast enough to survive.