As far as I understand, this is just a typosquatting attack, or more like Google SEO squatting attack. There does not exist any normal Python libraries anyone would use under these names. These packages are often made as a clone from an official package, just adding a new name. There is no reason to choose a cloned package with different name over the official one.

This is business as usual for PyPi. I reported ~3 cloned malicious packages last year and they were taken down. Only very inexperienced or unlucky software developer would fall for this attack, because these packages are not part of any supply chain. Thus, I feel calling this a supply chain attack is incorrect. Maybe a watering hole attack would be more closer to the truth.