On a more general note, war and disease go quite well together.
One thinks of the Influenza Pandemic of World One, which killed more people than the war (possibly 40 million).
Yet, such pandemics don't cause as much outrage as much more contained sexually transmitted diseases, like Syphilis or AIDS.
Neither do quick deaths cause as much hysteria as diseases that slowly disfigure the body, and especially the face, like some cancers, AIDS or
Susan Sontag discussed many of these points in AIDS And Its Metaphors
Significantly, military metaphors about a "war on cancer" (for example), physical "containment" and the social and individual bodies that can be
somehow kept "fortified" against the "invasive" pathogen mirror and accompany military endeavors quite happily.
This makes Ebola quite interesting - there's the idea that one can keep out a foreign threat (from the body and society), as well as the horrific
images of bleeding from the face.
However, infection is harder to pin on a stigmatized group, and a relatively quick death doesn't leave as much of an imprint on society as a slow
lingering "hard death", even if such outbreaks do eventually kill more people than STDs or cancer.
Heck, heart diseases killed more people, but an instantaneous death didn't raise much stigma or metaphorical concern (until quite recently,
That's not to say Ebola will kill as many as the Spanish Flu, but it certainly provides predictable and mixed metaphors.
And yet, there's no stigma about eating meat, even if most of our modern viral epidemics originate with that practice.
It seems our metaphors about new diseases have missed the actual root cause completely.