About one year ago when the Ebola scare first struck the U.S. much fiction rather than fact was spread about the disease: there are no treatments, all victims experience widespread hemorrhaging, and that Ebola has survival rate of nearly zero. However, over time, information has been gathered that reveals many of the previously held beliefs on the disease are false, and that Ebola—while still a disease worth being fearful of—is much less catastrophic than the general public had once believed.

One of the most common-held beliefs of Ebola that put the whole of North America in a state of paranoia was the threat of widespread hemorrhaging in all infected individuals. Luckily, this turned out to be a myth. The truth is, widespread hemorrhaging occurs in only a minority of patients—around 18 to 25 percent. Ebola tends to drain bodily fluids through diarrhea and intense vomiting. The draining of bodily fluids results in a loss of electrolytes, which help regulate heartbeat and maintain bodily functions, and thus can lead to a plethora of secondary infections such as heart and kidney failure.

With this being said, the immense loss of bodily fluids Ebola patients tend to experience—up to eight quarts a day—can be treated in properly equipped hospitals and clinics; in such institutions lost fluids can be replaced, and secondary infections can be monitored, prevented, and treated as they appear. According to Gartener, Ebola has a 90 percent survival rate in western hospitals—this statistic is much lower for un-hospitalized patients in Africa, who experience a 20 percent survival rate.

Ebola, as of now, is a fairly concentrated disease. The R number of Ebola—number of new infections expected—is between two and two and a half percent; about half the R number of small pox and SARS, and far below measles which has an R number around 18.

While Ebola could potentially grow and become a larger epidemic, it does not seem that the disease will be able to penetrate the health care system of the Western world.