A majority of respiratory viruses are enveloped (parainfluenza virus, influenza virus, RSV, and coronavirus) and survive on surfaces from hours to days. In contrast, most enteric viruses are nonenveloped and survive on fomites from weeks to months.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1828811/
Norovirus, being non-enveloped, survives better on surfaces. Not only that, but the envelope around the Ebola virus is made of proteins that are very attracted to detergents and bleach, so it is quite easy to kill off that way:
Taken together with empirical epidemiological observations during outbreaks, our results suggest that current recommendations for the decontamination of filoviruses in isolation wards [3] are effective
http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/196/Supplement_2/S142.full
Essentially the same protein envelope that makes Ebola so dangerous also makes it relatively easy to clean up.
I am comparing the stated transmission vectors of the two pathogens—infected body fluids—to determine how quickly Ebola can spread throughout the population of the US. Do you have a pathogen you think is a closer match to Ebola? If so I’d be interested in another comparison.
Even the most methodically cleaned places, such as ICU units, contain infectious material (MRSA is a fine example.)
Given that the infected nurses were doing their best to remain healthy and taking CDC-recommended precautions, I have no doubt that Ebola could cause just as much mayhem as noro, or roto for that matter, in any school, office, or other location into which it is introduced.
I’m quite serious about comparing Ebola to another pathogen with the same transmission profile/vector. If you have another pathogen with which to compare, please let me know.