It is questionable in the extreme to suggest that the pandemic has structurally altered MTGO tournaments. More people are playing on the client, but the game is the same, card acquisition is the same, and there really isn't a tangible or credible difference. In addition, as stated above and apparently missed, two paper events have been held via online platforms using webcams, one advertised on here and which I did metagame analysis for, the other from Japan. Lurrus was more dominant in the one I have data for, winning the event with an unadjusted MWP of 63.9%. The two Lurrus Breach players went undefeated, one winning the event, the other losing to the winner in the quaterfinals. Lurrus Breach also won the Japanese event. The metagame percentage was smaller but paper normally lags behind MTGO play and this was no exception, so again, there is very little actual merit to your position here.
As for @Thewhitedragon69's testing, while he has his personal experience (which I am not criticizing), that is one person's anecdotal evidence and is absolutely incomparable to the 157 players that registered Lurrus as a companion in the MTGO challenges and put up a non-mirror win rate 61% in ~513 matches, winning 3 events (5 if you include the online paper events). I encourage you to consider a hierarchy of evidence in forming your opinions that weighs tournament results and data from competitive events over other forms of evidence.
Of note, Lurrus is indeed a card that is powerful in its own right. It's current power and dominance is certainly not from being a maindeck inclusion, though. It's the fact that they made it a companion on top of being a solid magic card that makes it a multi-format defining card. Veil of Summer was given the additional card draw spell, Once upon a Time was given the additional free clause, these are examples of adding relatively small effects to cards that would eventually result in them being too powerful for certain formats and ultimately being banned.
Edit: I will also add that while you can divide things by "Force of Will deck", "Workshops deck", "Bazaar deck", again, those cards are not literally in your "hand" every game and we cannot or have not done directly tied the introduction of those cards to such a huge discrepancy in success. As stated again, Bazaar and Workshop decks are struggling in the current metagame. Even among Shops decks, those with Lurrus are doing better than those without. Among Force of Will decks, those with Lurrus are doing better than those without. So yes, you can split formats into classifications, but it's pretty clear that you are arguing a false equivalence here. Lurrus is the main reason these decks are doing well relative to non-Lurrus decks and we have data both before and after the introduction of Ikoria that supports this. You can also argue that we have a limited amount of time to draw on but these are structural issues apparent in every Eternal format. It's clear that these issues are not going to be addressed outside of B&R or rules action. Like I said, you can say that Vintage should be a Lurrus format just like it is a Power 9 format or perhaps a Force of Will/Bazaar/Shops format (though I would argue those cards except for FoW maybe are less impactful), but if you are ignoring the data and game play patterns, you are just deluding yourself at this point.