A few striking observations from a favorite anecdote in John G. Paton’s autobiography, below. If I’m not mistaken, this would be referring to a cholera outbreak in 1832 in the U.K.
1. Healthy believers long for the courts of the Lord and don’t let lesser things get in their way. 2. However, it appears that godly Scottish Presbyterians in the early 19th century believed that public health crises could warrant church closures (or at least effectively cause them by population controls). 3. And apparently, the same believed that the state could mandate such closures (or at least effectively, etc.) in the interests of public health.
Not an argument that any of our churches must necessarily close under the present circumstances; just an observation to help put some strong opinions out there in context.
West Port Experiment 
Apparently godly Baptists in the early 19th century believed that public health crises did NOT warrant church closures.
“Five Lessons from Spurgeon’s Ministry in the 1854 Cholera Outbreak”
#2 – SPURGEON ADJUSTED HIS MEETINGS BUT CONTINUED MEETING
“The Broad Street Cholera Outbreak of 1854 occurred in August and September of that year, and its effects were felt in the weeks and months to come. The neighborhood where Spurgeon’s church met was not quarantined, so they were able to continue meeting throughout those months. Interestingly, no record of the sermons Spurgeon preached during those days remain. Perhaps the outbreak forced the congregation to adjust some of their previous practices, including the transcription of sermons. Additionally, Spurgeon was likely too busy in those days to edit sermons for publication.
Yet we know that the congregation continued meeting during those days, because the church’s minute books contain records of congregational meetings throughout fall 1854. In those books, amid all the pastoral challenges of the outbreak, Spurgeon and his deacons continued to receive new members, pursue inactive members, observe the Lord’s Supper, and practice all the other normal activities of a church. Not only that, but in retrospect it was particularly during this time, when news of death raged all around the city, that Spurgeon found Londoners most receptive to the gospel:
If there ever be a time when the mind is sensitive, it is when death is abroad. I recollect, when first I came to London, how anxiously people listened to the gospel, for the cholera was raging terribly. There was little scoffing then.”
In other words, not only did Spurgeon gather his church amid the outbreak, but he saw in these gatherings a uniquely powerful opportunity for the gospel.
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/spurgeon-ministry-cholera-outbreak/
The following, rather lenghty article is Martin Luther’s response to the Black Death plague. He, at first believed that the local clergy could make up their own minds on how to handle it, but he continued to get requests for his thoughts. It is balanced and fair to all parties, I believe, leaving lots of room for liberty of conscience. The last paragraphs are quoted extensively, but the whole response is needed to put it in perspective:
https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2020/may-web-only/martin-luther-plague-pandemic-coronavirus-covid-flee-letter.html
Some today have rested in solace referencing a 1527 writing from Luther entitled, “Whether One May Flee From A Deadly Plague” in which he excuses some ministers who desire to abscond from the plague. One must read the entire letter of Luther to a pastor during this plague, as only a snippet of which has been bandied about by some today, including a series by Westminster Theological Seminary Professors sitting in their armchairs. It is hailed as support for the cessation of public gathering for worship, however some interesting facts of conscience and faith have not been forthcoming.
First, Luther says nothing of suspending worship, but rather that the city had “enough preachers” and that “spiritual services are provided for”. That is noteworthy in and of itself, for there was not a wholesale abandonment of the city, in fact Luther, Bugenhagen, and two chaplains, stayed on at Wittenberg. Luther states plainly, “Those who are engaged in a spiritual ministry such as preachers and pastors must likewise remain steadfast before the peril of death. We have a plain command from Christ, ‘A good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep but the hireling sees the wolf coming and flees’ [John 10:11]. For when people are dying, they most need a spiritual ministry which strengthens and comforts their consciences by word and sacrament and in faith overcomes death.” It is quite curious that the Professors left this out of their discussion.
Secondly, it is overwhelmingly evident, that those that avoid the plague are spoken of as weak in the faith and given over to fear. Specifically, Luther calls them, “weak and fearful”. The point then is that he no doubt says go ahead and flee, for such a one as you, are of no value here to minister to the sick and dying. And therein lies the rub. Let those who have closed the doors of the church today to the members, go out and personally minister to, pray with and encourage those infected and dying of the coronavirus. This is their duty and this is what Luther’s letter explains. But this is hardly seen nor heard in the present crisis! Oh but the government has restricted entry to the sick. This, however, should have been rejected by the Church and aggressively fought against, but church leaders did not.