Different crises have different effects on the economy. Or, to paraphrase Anna Karenina, "All healthy economies are alike. Each depressed economy is depressed in its own way."
What we need to do with coronavirus lockdowns is essentially to pause the economy. Cut all social contact off, let the virus run its course, develop a treatment or vaccine, and then reboot the economy. If the economy was healthy before (and most people say it generally was, despite a few doomsayers), that shouldn't be impossible. You could do it either by guaranteeing basic needs for the duration of the crisis, or by lending money on a short-term basis for the duration of the crisis, or by pausing all time-based payments like rent and debt.
Other economic recessions have had different causes:
2009 and 2001 were because the financial sector invested lots of money in unproductive sectors (real estate and dot-coms, respectively), and then that malinvestment needed to be written off and reinvested in more productive sectors of the economy before it could return to normal. That takes time, and it takes capital, and for people in the unproductive sectors it never happens. Tech started recovering in about 2011, while folks in coal mining or steel milling will probably never get their jobs back.
1973 was a supply shock. The price of oil went up rapidly. Everything else in the economy depends upon oil, or transportation using oil. Therefore, the price of everything else went up, and many marginal sectors of the economy were eliminated. All the massive bailout managed to do here was increase the price of everything.
1929 was a combination of everything going wrong. There was a speculative bubble during the 1920s which meant that a lot of capital was invested in Florida real estate, rum runners, consumer fads, and other unproductive sectors. There was a contraction of the money supply from 1929-1931 because the Fed screwed up. And then there was the dust bowl in 1931, which was a force majeure that added a supply shock.
Climate change is a much broader problem that affects the whole world. It'll likely result in massive migrations and productivity differentials across nations. If you have a free global market with porous national borders, the global economy will likely adapt, but there will be massive regional winners and losers. If you close the borders and try to deal with it on a national level, you'll probably get war.
Poverty is a consequence of liberty. If you let individuals make their own deals, some will inevitably make bad ones. Totalitarian regimes often have much lower inequality (excepting the ruling class), at the expense of everyone being poor. On an absolute level, even the poor in America are much better off than the rich in say the DRC.
Note that if the coronavirus isn't contained - if we just let people die instead of stopping it - we're likely to end up with a 1973-style supply shock rather than a graceful reboot. Except much worse. Labor is a factor of production for everything, and if people are dead, they can't work. When this happened after Black Death, the whole feudal system collapsed and we got the Rennaissance and modern market economy.