From a Wikipedia article on the 2009 swine flu pandemic: " Annual influenza epidemics are estimated to affect 5–15% of the global population. Although most cases are mild, these epidemics still cause severe illness in 3–5 million people and 290,000–650,000 deaths worldwide." I've just tossed this into the discussion to add to the baseline/perspective maybe, while governments and authorities work to deal specifically with the new corona virus. For instance, in the U.S. alone around 20,000 people have died of the flu this season (September 2019 through February 2020)--the average was around 40,000 annually from 1979 to 2001, just in the U.S. Some of the practical measures being taken by authorities to curtail the spread of the new Covid-19 virus (e.g., travel restrictions based on geographical factors, quarantine for those testing positive, cancellation of certain events with big crowds) might have varying degrees of effectiveness depending on how much the virus has already been spread by non-symptomatic or low-symptom carriers. These and related measures may buy more time for the researchers and big pharma companies to prepare vaccines and more effective anti-viral treatments. On the other hand, it might also be helpful to consider at what point an overabundance of concern becomes counterproductive. -- This isn't to argue against cancellation of races in countries that have been hit harder by the virus (e.g., Italy). In the short term, if only to assuage fears among the population, these kinds of measures probably have value. But I don't think it's misguided to try to get as clear a "big picture" of the situation as possible.
Edit: I will also add that Jagartrott beats me on conciseness.