It really isn't, publications like the Guardian have just misled people about how the economy works and why corporations make profits in situations like this. I

It really isn't, publications like the Guardian have just misled people about how the economy works and why corporations make profits in situations like this. It's basically a direct consequence of two things: people cannot buy stuff unless it's actually available to buy, and money does not disappear when it's spent. This means that when there's not enough stuff available to buy, everyone bids up prices until demand meets supply again, with the money ending up as profits at whatever parts of the supply chain are most constrained. This is a perfectly reasonable place for it to end up: those companies are actively helping make the problem less bad by existing and investing in production at the level they did, it incentivises more such investment, and - most importantly - limiting corporate profits and price increases cannot prevent people from becoming worse off in real terms because the amount they buy is still limited to what's actually being produced.