"Supply shock" may be just a fancy way of saying "The government wants more stuff but can't pay for it". Which tends to apply everywhere, every time. So we're back to "if they print money, you get inflation".
There is another supply to consider, which rarely suffers a shock: The supply of "economists" that want to be close to the government, and are all to happy to tell it what it wants to hear: "Print, print, don't worry, I have a spreadsheet that says that sometimes you print money and there's no inflation, so go for it. Am I getting invited to the next party?"
If my country's farms used to produce 2 billion calories per day which kept up with demand, and they drop to only producing 1 billion calories per day and now we have a food shortage - does the nation "want more stuff" because we want to import more food, or do we merely want the same amount of calories as before?
If you have less than you use to, but want to have the same as you used to, that means you want to have more than you currently do.
I think you're trying to appeal to some emotional notion of fairness, but its really irrelavent here. The world is unfair, and the consequences to actions don't care whether or not it seems "fair".
Isn't a better interpretation of that kind of supply shock "The government can no longer pay for the same stuff it used to"? That's a much different scenario to "The government wants more stuff but can't pay for it," because telling the public that you don't have the money to pay for reliable electricity or hip replacements is the kind of thing that causes regime change. People hate losing stuff more than they like gaining stuff.
There is another supply to consider, which rarely suffers a shock: The supply of "economists" that want to be close to the government, and are all to happy to tell it what it wants to hear: "Print, print, don't worry, I have a spreadsheet that says that sometimes you print money and there's no inflation, so go for it. Am I getting invited to the next party?"