The thing with these epidemic scares is that they never give you precise enough information to make any sort of a judgment.
What percentage of the fatalities were infants or the very elderly?
What percentage of the fatalities were very poor?
What percentage of the fatalities did not receive medical attention in the early stages of the disease?
The higher those percentages climb, the lower the impact of whatever the disease is going to be on the local North American population.
This of course isn't trying to say anything about the impact of such a disease overseas, especially in very poor areas with very little medical infrastructure, but simply to say that it is hard to know what the numbers we are getting mean in a local context.
Now on the other hand if you were saying that 900 people have been infected and 30 had died and their distribution across socioeconomic and age categories was random, I might be concerned about how it would impact North America.
As it stands however, we don't have those probably very easily supplied answers, so we are left to wonder.