It's related to rabies, but how does it "look" like rabies?
I think this is what they mean.The sequencing puts this new virus on its own branch of the bad virus family tree -- somewhat related to Ebola and the virus that causes Lassa fever, another horrific killer, and most closely related to the rhabdoviruses. This family usually only infects animals with one notable exception -- rabies.
I think this is what they mean.
That's a matter of interpretation. In phylogenetic terms, it would be acceptable to say that it "looks like" rabies (based on phylogenetic signatures). I think you're taking this a bit too literally.Then the words they're looking for is "related to" not "looks like". "Looks like" equates to "presents as", which means it can't act like Ebola.
It's nothing like rabies aside from being a rhabdovirus.
Uroboros!