I thought that the general accepted knowledge was that as viruses mutate they tend to get less deadly, not worse
I think that may be too simplistic a view (sorry!). Generally, viruses need to survive just like the rest of us, so any mutations (mistakes in the genetic code made during replication) that occur will either make their spread (and thus survival) more likely, or they will not. The longer a virus can keep its host alive and spread more virus particles, the better. But it could still kill at the end of that. So it would be deadly, but only after a longer period of illness.
In the case of Coronaviruses, apparently they do the equivalent of 'spell checking' their genetic code when they replicate, to cut down on mistakes, so they don't often incorporate mutations. Even so, this particular Coronavirus is doing rather well, it has a long incubation time, it doesn't get serious for about a week, allowing the host to spread it as they still feel well enough to be out and about, but then for some folk, it worsens considerably and can lead to death. So it's already capable of spreading efficiently, so there's no great need for it to mutate in order to spread better. Which is potentially good news, of a sort, for treatment strategies. In that way, it's fortunate it isn't like flu, that mutates far more readily.
www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/03/25/820998549/the-coronavirus-is-mutating-but-that-may-not-be-a-problem-for-humans?t=1587369120403