68%
[no it's] 68%
"Survivors" invariably suffer major damage to kidneys, liver, and brain. Most require permanent custodial care and do not ever recover. They do not live very long either.
I would call that an effective mortality rate of 100%.
The mortality for Ebola is ...well, it depends. It depends on which specific Ebola virus we are talking about. There are five different strains, with mortality ranging from 83-90% for the Zaire Ebola strain, through to 68% for the Sudan strain, to just 34% for the Uganda strain. It will be interesting to see the final mortality for this West African strain, and whether it is a new one. Considering the only prior West African strain is a Cote'D'Ivoire strain, which killed a bunch of chimpanzees and only infected one person, who survived, the fact that this W.African strain has killed many people indicates that it is probably a new strain. This would make the known Ebola strains to be 6 (Zaire, Uganda, Sudan, Cote D'Ivoire and Reston ...with Reston coming out of the Philippies originally and not Africa. This new one, let's call it W.Africa, would be six).
There is also the Marburg virus, which is similar to Ebola and can also be nasty, with mortality ranging from the low 20% to 100%. I guess it depends on your luck that day. What is interesting about Marburg is that this is the virus that the Soviets had spent a LOT of money weaponizing.