Frankly, I think it depends on how much BS the population is fed about "hard to catch". The more complacent the population, the more likely the virus will spread, and the more rapidly it will do so.
Since antibiotics, we have become far more lax in hygiene as a population, despite hand sanitizers and the like.
Keep in mind, too that more complex systems can break down with the removal of a few key components, and the ripple effect on transportation and supply, on grocery deliveries, fuel distribution, electrical power, etc. could be profound. That might kill more people than the virus.
This is the first time the virus has gone wild in any major urban area, albeit those have been in Africa, but the opportunity for transmission of the disease increases as people are closer together, even in public conveyances (droplet range, fomites), elevators, escalators, etc.
I am not sure at all that the spiffines of our gadgetry will make a significant difference to the virus.
Are you kidding? People would freak out to see how Americans lived before antibiotics, and be disgusted by their lack of hygiene.
Some Ebola is not going to keep guys from going to work and getting into their trucks with packed lunches to deliver gasoline and groceries, or going out to repair a power line after a storm, or at the refinery, or grainery.
Have you dropped that claim, or will you try to explain it?