That's a claim in NYT. The papers are far more cautious because there is not enough data.

ZMapp, for example, showed around 40-50% decrease, was well tolerated during the West Africa outbreak but was still canceled because after more data was crunched it was not possible to attribute that decrease in mortality to ZMapp in a statistically significant way.

> they are cures.

Not as of now. They are promising regiments that might be developed into cures but as of now there are no cures for Ebola.

> Sure, we don't have a cure for COVID, but this has nothing to do we the fact that we have cures for totally unrelated virus-caused diseases.

That has been a long promised but it is not the case as of now. I believe the last cure was supposed to come out of DRACO but it even though the studies were initially promising (2011 press was ga-ga over the coming cure for nearly all viral diseases based on DRACO derived therapy) it failed to demonstrate enough viability to secure funding for further studies).

It is why the vaccinations are super-important. It is vaccinations and prevention that controls nasty viral diseases, not treatment. Ebola will be controlled and eradicated via vaccine, not cured.

We have been extremely lucky the most of diseases caused by the common viruses are relatively banal ( even if unpleasant ) i.e. the likes of common flu, herpes and HPV or extremely nasty i.e. polio and Ebola because at the present time we do not have a way to significantly affect the outcomes.