Yes, though the number of health care workers catching the disease in West Africa is more indicative of the total lack of basic medical supplies there, than anything else. Last that I heard, the MSF has a very low rate of transmission to medical staff because they're properly outfitted and strict about decontamination protocols.
That said, too many people are repeating the "it isn't airborne" line as if it has great significance. Ebola doesn't need to be "airborne" -- it's contagious enough, simply because it's very difficult for human beings not to come into contact with "bodily fluids", particularly when they're caring for sick people.
The fact that Ebola "isn't airborne" is comforting from the perspective that it isn't likely to spread to large numbers of people in public spaces. But even so, it's more than infectious enough to cause an epidemic.
I am surprised that there has not been more written about recruiting survivors to work in the facilities (on the theory the they are much more likely to be immune to re-infection at least on many basic cleaning and patient care tasks (not inserting IV's or doing complex procedures).
Edit/Update Medscape did a detailed write-up on Ebola at http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/216288-overview and includes this note on recovery time, which may explain why even those who survive may take months to recover:
In those patients who do recover, recovery often requires months, and delays may be expected before full resumption of normal activities. Weight gain and return of strength are slow. Ebola virus continues to be present for many weeks after resolution of the clinical illness.
(i) No additional imports of infection.
(ii) Patients maintain the pattern of either going to a hospital early in infectious period, or at home or in a community setting such that there is a reduced risk of disease transmission (includes safe burial when needed).
(iii) Maintenance of effective isolation and barriers-to-infection at hospitals and at home or in a community setting such that there is a reduced risk of disease transmission (includes safe burial when needed).
Both (ii) and (iii) are already wrong so I don’t know how much faith we can put in the modelling accuracy.
http://www.msf.org/article/ebola-workers-risk-tragic-reality...
(of their ~3000 staff in the region, 14 have been infected, they believe most of those infections have taken place outside of their hospitals)
The doctor in the article, who decided to check someone with potential Ebola exposure for a fever with his bare skin, was not being extremely careful.
(Note - doctors should be washing hands continuously regardless - when I went in for a checkup in Kaiser/Mountain View a few years ago, Doctor washed his hands upon coming in the room, washed his hands after checking my heartbeat with a stethoscope, and then washed them a third time before leaving the room. This was to check someone who had no symptoms whatsoever. I asked him about it, and it was Kaiser policy - he said he washed his hands about 20 times an hour. )
While westerners are becoming infected, I don't think it's that hard to see how the extremely poor health care facilities in West Africa would make it very difficult to follow proper protocol, even if you knew what you were doing.
The most salient factor is indirect contact. Health care workers are aware that they must wash their hands after having contact with a sick patient, but it is extremely hard to remember to take similar steps after touching any surface such patient might have touched himself, even if it looks clean to the bare eye.
Take that a step up - Health Care workers must wash their hands after having contact with any patient and before touching any patient (and themselves for that matter).
http://www.cdc.gov/features/handwashing/
It takes 20 seconds, and is probably one of the most effective ways of preventing the spread of various infections/diseases.