Something to consider: even if it was "just like a flu" (which it isn't, enough commenters already pointed out the differences, but let's just for the sake of my argument assume that it was), it is a matter of fact that this would then be a "second flu" going around at a time at which doctors and hospitals are already well-loaded with caring for patients that have more serious trouble with the "real flu" that happens to be at the peak of its activity just at the same time.
The "real flu" is relatively non-deadly for most people (even though it still kills a lot of people in absolute numbers) precisely because the healthcare system is capable of providing care to those requiring it because of the flu. It can do this because the flu is a relatively well-understood phenomenon, it comes every year, and although the exact mutations of the virus differ between the years, the overall characteristics of the outbreak are relatively well-known in advance. There are also vaccines against the flu (these are a big thing in allowing the personnel in the healthcare sector to do their work, which of course exposes them to flu patients) and there is medication available that's able to quicken the recovery. Nevertheless, the flu still puts a lot of strain on the system, and having a "second flu" of entirely unknown characteristics going around, possibly even infecting the same patients, for which there is no vaccination and no medication at all is not exactly a thing to take light-hearted.
I would not be surprised at all if the "real flu" would later be found to be much more deadly this year than in the years before, not because the virus was any different than before, but because the additional strain due to COVID-19 negatively impacted care for flu patients.
Thanks. The overloading of the healthcare system, which you and others mentioned, is something I had not considered. It makes sense that two flu-like[1] virulent diseases at the same time can overload it and that it would be a very serious matter. I still think panicking is not the answer, but I'm now convinced it's a more serious matter than I first thought.
[1] for the sake of argument, even if coronavirus is not actually similar to any flu strand. I'm not a specialist and I cannot tell the actual differences.
The "real flu" is relatively non-deadly for most people (even though it still kills a lot of people in absolute numbers) precisely because the healthcare system is capable of providing care to those requiring it because of the flu. It can do this because the flu is a relatively well-understood phenomenon, it comes every year, and although the exact mutations of the virus differ between the years, the overall characteristics of the outbreak are relatively well-known in advance. There are also vaccines against the flu (these are a big thing in allowing the personnel in the healthcare sector to do their work, which of course exposes them to flu patients) and there is medication available that's able to quicken the recovery. Nevertheless, the flu still puts a lot of strain on the system, and having a "second flu" of entirely unknown characteristics going around, possibly even infecting the same patients, for which there is no vaccination and no medication at all is not exactly a thing to take light-hearted.
I would not be surprised at all if the "real flu" would later be found to be much more deadly this year than in the years before, not because the virus was any different than before, but because the additional strain due to COVID-19 negatively impacted care for flu patients.