The Authors argue convincingly that HCWs require maximum protection and deconstruct the misinformation about airborne versus aerosols. They argue convincingly that it is an "aerosol-transmissible disease", requiring maximum respiratory protection for HCWs.
None of the references in that article support their argument that Ebola could be airborne. One *can* get Ebola by breathing infected particles (droplets), which transiently become propelled into the air through mechanical actions, for instance, by pulling contaminated sheets off a bed. Those artificially generated droplets, however, are not true aerosol particles, and acquiring Ebola in that manner constitutes "close contact" transmission, not airborne transmission. In many past outbreaks, children who lived in the same home as an Ebola victim did not get sick, while the person caring for the victim did. Airborne diseases transmit across a distance and across time (you can get measles by breathing air in a room where someone with measles was present hours before you).
If Ebola were an airborne transmissible disease, people would be able to stick N95 masks on Ebola patients to contain the virus, and not worry about space suits. Caregivers would be able to use standard PPE instead of space suits. Because Ebola is a bloodborne pathogen, the requirements for PPE for anyone working close with the patient are quite stringent--but they are not needed for someone who does not get close to the patient. Also, if Ebola were airborne, it would have drastically different symptoms, since it would infect, and disrupt normal function of, respiratory cells rather than the connective tissue cells that it is known to infect.
It is really important to understand the difference between an airborne transmissible disease, and one that is bloodborne with a possible secondary route through droplet transmission. The measures needed to stop spread are very different in each case, and measures to stop one kind of transmission will be ineffective to stop another kind of transmission.