Not so much, at least until it becomes airborne and/or easily spread by something like common animal fleas. BD had very similar virulence coupled with easy spread, after becoming entrenched in an area it would become pneumonic plague, which, IIRC, could be passed by airborne transmission.
Ebola may be mutating towards that, the earliest outbreaks were so ridiculously virulent that it essentially killed people faster than they could spread it around. In a nutshell 20-30% mortality Ebola would probably be WAY worse than 85-95% mortality Ebola.
Consider this, in a western nation a disease will probably only need to be widespread and have 1.5-3% (about 4.5 to 10 million people here in the U.S.) mortality to unravel a society. I say that because that is enough mortality to A) start to kill key people involved in social systems infrastructure and B) incite enough panic to keep other key people away from their necessary jobs/tasks.
Curiously the WHO tweeted earlier today that men who survived ebola may still spread it through sexual contact up to seven weeks after recovery. Once again a 90% mortality rate may be a blessing in disguise.
Sounds like it could really do a job on the “deep blue” cities.