It seems to thrive best in the tropics, so likely it will not do particularly well in the United States, but you never know. No reason to tempt fate by intentionally bringing it in, that's for damned sure.
There is no basis whatsoever for the first statement.
Really?? Look at any map recording the history of Ebola outbreaks of any demographic significance. There are clear north and south borders suggested, paralleling specific latitudinal lines, centering in the middle tropics of the African continent, and this over many decades. I'd classify that as constituting at least
some basis for concluding that its nature is that of a tropical disease.
A disease from the same part of Africa with similar transmission characteristics has already demonstrated that in spades. Worse, at the time we discovered HIV, our understanding of it included at or very nearly 100% mortality. It also would be the poster disease for the absurdity of trying to close the borders to disease.
The obvious difference being a long track record with Ebola of outbreaks of significance being contained within the tropics of Africa.
The mere fact that a disease
originates in the tropics, of course, doesn't by itself imply the absence of potential for expansion (in terms of significant outbreaks) beyond present latitudinal limits, but when there's a consistent track record of being so contained over many decades, that's at least meaningful information for the purpose of making predictions about its near future vis-a-vis geographic concentration.
