[M T]

I've seen report that the death rate was about 7% for 65+ patients, down to 1% for children.  
This 2-week old report indicates death rate as
   0-39 0.2%
 40-49 0.4%
 50-59 1.3%
 60-69 3.6%
 70-79 8.0%
 80+  14.8%
Males: 2.8%
Females: 1.7%

Edit: CNN report on the same Chinese study 

The new study examined data from 72,314 patients, 44,672 of which were confirmed cases of the virus (61.8%), along with 10,567 clinically diagnosed cases (14.6%) and 16,186 suspected cases (22.4%). An additional 889 cases examined did not show any symptoms.

What I haven't seen is any indication of the percent of people that don't get this disease even if exposed. 
As of Feb. 24, the number of people infected in China as 77,000 (13.8% severe, 4.7% critical - I think those are disjoint).  The city of Wuhan has a population of 11M.  The density of infection in the population is less than 0.7% (based on all cases having been counted and all are in that city - neither of which is right)

(For comparison, L.A. metropolitan area has a population of 18.7M (Calif. 39.5M).  An equal infection density would be 131,000.
13.8% = 18,000;  4.7% = 6,000, total 24,000.  The entire state of California has about  74,000 beds, suggesting L.A. metropolitan area might have 35,000 beds.)

I don't know the normal housing situation, the use of mass transit, nor how health care is provided in the most impacted area in China.  In California, "retirement" homes tend to pack older people into community housing at a denser rate than younger people, with shared eating & common areas, with shared staff serving many of them.  I can imagine that would tend toward having a higher infection rate (and spread) among such people.  However, death rate (as a % of infections) would initially seem to be independent of that.  Lack of resources ($) and overwhelmed care could impact death rates.

In our area, the densest packing of people would seem to be in mass transit.  Sporting events also converge a large group of otherwise strangers into a tight group.   Schools & churches & work places tend to have smaller, but more, groups brought together.   People that live together (families, dorms, senior housing, etc.) are going to expose one another.  (I would classify cabs/Uber/Lyft as dense packing because of the number of people in each vehicle during a 9-day period.)

I'd expect we soon will have strong pleas of "Stay home if you have ANY symptoms."  (Who doesn't have some symptoms?  I've been blaming allergies for an occasional little cough or sneeze.)   That will give way to stronger warnings or measures.  But what person struggling to support their family is going to figure they need to stay home for a mild flu?   For instance, in my work space, I might avoid coworkers that might be sick, but what about the cleaning staff that comes into every office & common area at night, or the guards that periodically patrol our halls? We share doorknobs, elevator buttons, light switches, trash cans, basins, etc.

The purpose of a general quarantine or shutdown of mass transit & businesses, if it should come to that, is to spread the infections out over time, so health facilities aren't overwhelmed (reducing effective care to those in that big wave).   I'm sure there will be some that will question the effectiveness or the fairness of such a decision.  (I won't be questioning it.  I'm more likely to question why did it take so long.)

I hope that many people are able to telecommute (voluntarily or otherwise) and reduce their risk & the risk to others they might have otherwise exposed.  But there are many people (including most of the lower income people) that can't.

Good luck to us all.

Btw, studies do show that thoroughly washing hands is better than using the alcohol-based hand sanitizers, for removing viruses from hands.  But the sanitizers are effective if you don't have access to soap & water.  (The "antibacterial" hand washes are now generally banned as not having been shown as safe & effective.)

[M T]

I've seen report that the death rate was about 7% for 65+ patients, down to 1% for children.  
This 2-week old report indicates death rate as
   0-39 0.2%
 40-49 0.4%
 50-59 1.3%
 60-69 3.6%
 70-79 8.0%
 80+  14.8%
Males: 2.8%
Females: 1.7%

Edit: CNN report on the same Chinese study 

The new study examined data from 72,314 patients, 44,672 of which were confirmed cases of the virus (61.8%), along with 10,567 clinically diagnosed cases (14.6%) and 16,186 suspected cases (22.4%). An additional 889 cases examined did not show any symptoms.

What I haven't seen is any indication of the percent of people that don't get this disease even if exposed. 
As of Feb. 24, the number of people infected in China as 77,000 (13.8% severe, 4.7% critical - I think those are disjoint).  The city of Wuhan has a population of 11M.  The density of infection in the population is less than 0.7% (based on all cases having been counted and all are in that city - neither of which is right)

(For comparison, L.A. metropolitan area has a population of 18.7M (Calif. 39.5M).  An equal infection density would be 131,000.
13.8% = 18,000;  4.7% = 6,000, total 24,000.  The entire state of California has about  74,000 beds, suggesting L.A. metropolitan area might have 35,000 beds.)

I don't know the normal housing situation, the use of mass transit, nor how health care is provided in the most impacted area in China.  In California, "retirement" homes tend to pack older people into community housing at a denser rate than younger people, with shared eating & common areas, with shared staff serving many of them.  I can imagine that would tend toward having a higher infection rate (and spread) among such people.  However, death rate (as a % of infections) would initially seem to be independent of that.  Lack of resources ($) and overwhelmed care could impact death rates.

In our area, the densest packing of people would seem to be in mass transit.  Sporting events also converge a large group of otherwise strangers into a tight group.   Schools & churches & work places tend to have smaller, but more, groups brought together.   People that live together (families, dorms, senior housing, etc.) are going to expose one another.  (I would classify cabs/Uber/Lyft as dense packing because of the number of people in each vehicle during a 9-day period.)

I'd expect we soon will have strong pleas of "Stay home if you have ANY symptoms."  (Who doesn't have some symptoms?  I've been blaming allergies for an occasional little cough or sneeze.)   That will give way to stronger warnings or measures.  But what person struggling to support their family is going to figure they need to stay home for a mild flu?   For instance, in my work space, I might avoid coworkers that might be sick, but what about the cleaning staff that comes into every office & common area at night, or the guards that periodically patrol our halls? We share doorknobs, elevator buttons, light switches, trash cans, basins, etc.

The purpose of a general quarantine or shutdown of mass transit & businesses, if it should come to that, is to spread the infections out over time, so health facilities aren't overwhelmed (reducing effective care to those in that big wave).   I'm sure there will be some that will question the effectiveness or the fairness of such a decision.  (I won't be questioning it.  I'm more likely to question why did it take so long.)

I hope that many people are able to telecommute (voluntarily or otherwise) and reduce their risk & the risk to others they might have otherwise exposed.  But there are many people (including most of the lower income people) that can't.

Good luck to us all.

Btw, studies do show that thoroughly washing hands is better than using the alcohol-based hand sanitizers, for removing viruses from hands.  But the sanitizers are effective if you don't have access to soap & water.  (The "antibacterial" hand washes are now generally banned as not having been shown as safe & effective.)