Will printing more money during COVID cause hyperinflation? When COVID started, many countries started printing loads of money and handing it out to their people. Here are some examples
US is printing money to help save the economy from the COVID-19 crisis
We’re Paying for Coronavirus Stimulus by Printing Money
14 countries that are paying their workers during quarantine
Coronavirus bailouts
Why Countries Are Giving People Cash Amid the Pandemic
There are definitely people that need the support but also many that won't bother finding work because the handouts are more than what they were earning before. So if there are less people working, doesn't that imply a drop in 'Goods and Services' produced by the country? And with all the money being printed and handed out, that's an increase in money being circulated.
The article The problem with printing money does a good job of explaining the effects of unrestrained money printing when the 'Goods/Services' of a country remains constant. However, I'm arguing that goods and services are decreasing but the money being circulated has increased which is even worse.
I know of hyperinflation in Germany after WWI and Zimbabwe in more recent times from all the money printing. I'm sure there are other examples in history.
So are the countries doing all this money printing on road to hyperflation? If not, why not?
Will printing more money during COVID cause hyperinflation?

Likely not for several reasons. First, the article from economicshelp.org you mention is oversimplifying the economics, which is understandable as it is article written for non-economists, but to understand this issue we need to go little bit further.
Inflation, is simply just positive change in price level and price level of an economy is determined by the equilibrium at money market. The money market equilibrium, in its simplified form (more complex models include expectations of the quantities as well but this should suffice for this answer) is given by equation of exchange (See Mankiw Macroeconomics pp 87) as:
$$MV=PY.$$
Where $M$ is the money supply, $V$ velocity of money, $P$ price level and $Y$ output.
Solving for price level and log-linearizing (so % changes in right hand side variables give us the % change in P) we get:
$$\ln P=\ln M+\ln V−\ln Y.$$
Hence, it is true that inflation depends on increase in money supply but it also depend on changes in velocity of money and real output. If money supply increases by $30\%$ and real output decreases (due to pandemic) by $10\%$ and velocity drops by $40\%$ these effects cancel out and even $30\%$ increase in money supply would not lead to any inflation.
In fact one of the main reasons why we did not see much inflation recently is that velocity of money dropped significantly as you can see from Fred data. It is not clear if velocity will pick up in near future and as long as it remains low it will be offsetting considerable amount of increase in money supply despite of significant drop of real output.
Next, it is important to understand what hyperinflation is. Following Cagan The Monetary Dynamics of Hyperinflation, hyperinflation can be defined as an increase in price level that exceeds $50\%$ per month.
This means that in terms of the simple model $\Delta M + \Delta V - \Delta Y  = 50\%$ per month.  There is simply not enough money creation going on  in most countries to hit that $50\%$ per month value to classify as hyperinflation. For example, in the US the money stock as measured by $M2$ increased during last year by $\approx 19\%$ (see Fred data). While, that is without doubt large increase relative to previous years, it is far cry from increase in money supply that would lead to hyperinflation, even taking into account drop in output due to covid. Hyperinflation would not be caused by changes in velocity either because even though it is possible it would pick up later velocity usually does not increase fast month by month.
Lastly, if there would be any signs of hyperinflation independent central banks would start acting. In countries like Zimbabwe central banks are not independent and often they are forced to expand money supply rapidly by politicians. In most developed countries central banks are independent and for most part run by technocrats. Central banks have plethora of tools to sharply reduce money supply.
Even though people often just label all money creation money printing this is really just analogy as it is easier to explain money supply increases to people that way, but in reality most money are created by banking system via lending and central banks control the amount of money that can be created by changes in interest rates on its reserves (see for example McLeay, Radia, &amp; Thomas; 2014). Next money are also created when Fed borrows money to the government via its open market operations. Only very small fraction of money are actually printed each year and similar picture holds for most developed nations.
Consequently, if Fed or any other modern independent central bank would spot signs of not just hyperinflation but even high inflation (like $10\%$ per year) they would quickly start hiking interest rates which would slow money creation and eventually even destroy part of new money, they would stop buying government bonds or even sell them again destroying part of money supply and so on. Independent central banks are quite good 'inflation fighting machines' and empirical literature, for the most part, shows that there is negative relationship between central bank independence and inflation (e.g. see Jácome &amp; Vázquez; 2008).
Of course, it is not literally impossible that the situation will be mishandled, and heads of central banks are still typically appointed by politicians in most countries  so there is possibility of political capture of central banks, but as the things look like now I would say that hyperinflation in most developing countries is astronomically unlikely in near future.