If you want a honest comparison, compare the death rates pre-1900s.
I don't understand what you are trying to say.
Yes, it was a different story in 1814, but none of us were alive then, so why do we care with regard to this thread? This is a current, 2014 outbreak of ebola, and if you are deciding whether to be scared of it or not, you should compare it to contemporary, 2014 alternative threats.
Nor do I really understand what you're trying to say about treatment comparisons. I don't see a significant difference. Alzheimer's is pretty much just as likely to kill you if you get it as ebola is, treatment included. As is diabetes, I'd bet. As is cancer (maybe a bit less so).
More importantly, both ebola and most of these chronic diseases have voluntary choices you can make to avoid them. Yet people act extremely irrationally in the importance they place on anti-ebola voluntary choices (acting super paranoid in airports and government officials spending tons of resources to hunt people down for slight rumors, etc.) versus anti-chronic choices that are MUCH MUCH MUCH more likely to save your life. Like exercising and not eating crap. Or on the government side, subsidizing things like cabbage instead of gallons upon gallons of high fructose corn syrup in agriculture bills... or work to better regulate environmental carcinogens from pollution, fracking, etc. Or instead of spending billions to rush research and stockpile ebola vaccines or antivirals, maybe spend some more money on healthy school lunches and save way more lives per dollar?
Pre-1900 because that data shows you how dangerous, exactly, IDs can get if you DON'T have all the nice advantage of treatment availability we do nowadays. Basically, apples and oranges - you're comparing how bad IDs+treatment are vs. how bad NCDs+no treatment are, and your claim that it only pertrains to the current, 2014 outbreak is rendered null and void once you suggest a switch in policy.
Indoor tanning, bad diet, smoking et cetera are all risk factors that are, as Sheb said, mostly lifestyle choices. The main effective way of preventing those would be to force people to live healthy at gunpoint (/hyperbole). A large percentage of those who do those things is aware of the risks but decides to take them anyway. ID prevention amounts to 'pray that person is not infected' as far as individual people do.
Also, CVD, cancer, Alzheimer's et al are, broadly speaking, long-onset diseases. It takes X years for them to develop (with some exceptions, but nonetheless). That's a huuuuuge window of opportunity for treatment development without harm to the person, then some more before the disease actually kills the person. Meanwhile, once you get a nasty ID, if it's gonna be lethal, it's gonna be lethal within days, plus you can get it anytime.