Yes, but it is the same for total number infected. Outside estimates are that there are more than 100k infected. That would put the mortality rate ~= the flu.
Current estimates (based on official, massively undercounted figures) suggest that 2019-nCoV is both more infectious (higher R_0) and has a higher fatality rate. So not really, no. If your estimate is ~100k infected, don't assume that your number of deaths is the same either.
Consider also that fatality rate depends on demographic and access to healthcare. That second factor is highly dependent on how stressed the health service is. So if you're lucky enough to live somewhere with both high quality healthcare and low infection rate, then your chances of dying will be lower. Not everyone is so lucky. This is why measuring fatality rates outside of China can be misleading as an indicator of what the true fatality rate might be.
You need to account for the delay to death in your model here. People don't die the second they're infected. Most of the people in that estimated infected number were infected in the last week. They couldn't possibly have died of the disease. I believe most epidemiological models have a infection to death delay factor to estimate death rate. Your mortality rate with ~300/100k~=flu is too low.
deaths due to flu are overestimated in western world as those are mainly due to flu striking after patient is going through some other illness and flu was the final blow.
