The deeper question is: how does a civilized society respond to this? By saying: "You die now, loser, LOLZ", or through years of sufficient planning and preparation for emergency situations like this?
Personally, I think as a society we are long past the "die now loser" phase, and can definitely supply resources to even-out this temporary dip for the most impacted. However, I'm from the US, and 40% of the country wants to shoot me for believing anything but bootstraps and social darwinism.
If you think that wealth inequality is, itself, a bad thing, then ask yourself a simple question: If you create a software company that employs 200 employees making a median income of 125K, is that a good thing? But how can it be, when it has exacerbated wealth inequality?
In my humble opinion, inequality is bad only in the minds of people who want to fund their political wishlists with other people's money, and need to spin a narrative where not taking other people's money is morally wrong.
Put another way: if one group's salary averages $150,000/year while another's averages $40,000/year, and the first gets annual raises while the second stays mostly flat… can you see why that's bad?