Which epidemics are you comparing it to? SARS and MERS for example are the ones that come to mind, but you need to take a good look at the raw numbers for those. Yes, they killed a higher percentage of those who caught it, but, no, they didn't actually spread very much
at all.https://www.sciencealert.com/here-s-what-scientists-do-and-don-t-know-about-wuhan-coronavirus-so-farSARS infected just over 8000, with around 800 deaths. MERS infected 2500, also with around 800 deaths. This new thing spreads much more easily, and already tops both of those for deaths combined. Disease which kill you spectacularly and quickly tend to burn out quickly too, because people know to stay away. Diseases which linger and have more "carriers" who might not be aware they even have it can end up killing a lot more people.
That's how come the flu kills so many people, despite only killing 1/1000 of the sufferers. This thing spreads as well or faster than flu and also has probably about 10 times the fatality rate. So, it's like a super-flu, and flu is one of the biggest killing diseases in all of history.
To jump now, and compare it to other "flu epidemics", first consider "swine flu".
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-flu-h1n1-pandemic/swine-flu-infected-1-in-5-death-rate-low-study-shows-idUSBRE90O0T720130125As bad as covid-19? Nope. Swine flu had a death rate of only 0.02%. Sure, it infected a ton of people, but it only killed about
1 in 5000. Less than season flu, even. It was obviously a misplaced panic.
There's also H5N1 "bird flu" that was noted in the news. But, note, it only spread from birds to humans, with pretty much zero human-to-human spread. It killed 115 people, and stopped once we immunized or slaughtered a bunch of chickens and stuff to stop it.
So, none of the major outbreaks of the last 20 years is anything like this one.