Replies

I believe it's the other way around. The mortality rate for Marburg is lower than that for Ebola. I think the somewhat high rates of recovering victims points to Marburg as the prevalent bad guy here. No doubt some of the cases are Ebola, but the differences between the two are staggering.
Ebola literally turns your soft tissue to pudding. IV's won't stay in the vein as the veins are liquefying. You bleed from your pores and eyeballs. Your body falls apart as the connecting tissue between meat and bones liquefies. It's an ugly way to die.
People sometimes recover from Marburg. Ebola, not so much.

No. Ebola and Marburg are indistinguishable by symptoms alone. Neither one turns the organs to mush.

If you compare the death rate of Marburg against all Ebola, Marburg is more deadly, at about 80% fatal, compared to Ebola at 67%.

If you compare Marburg to each strain of Ebola, it is more fatal than four of the five strains. The fatality rate for the other strain, Ebola Zaire, is comparable to Marburg at 79%. Ebola Zaire is responsible for both on-going outbreaks, the one in West Africa and the other in the Congo.

The fatality rate during the west Africa outbreak has been low, in comparison. Fewer than 60% of the victims have died, last I checked. The death rate might be higher in those who cannot get into a clinic or hospital for care.