There has been rather a lot of press along those lines, certainly. A substantial fraction of the "parameter space" for supersymmetry does seem to have been ruled out. But for better or worse, SUSY has a very large potential parameter space, so the theory as a whole is nowhere near being disproven. I don't have the impression that many actual particle physicists have changed their minds yet.
To some degree, how one views the current data depends on one's expectations going in. For the Higgs search, the LHC (and other experiments) had already ruled out the vast majority of the possible masses for the particle, long before it was discovered. But we didn't take that as evidence against its existence; instead, we expected that those results were "boxing in" the true value (as indeed they were).
So someone who considers the theoretical argument for supersymmetry to be very strong could interpret the current data in a similar way: the LHC is homing in on its actual form by ruling out alternative possibilities. On the other hand, someone who considers the theoretical argument unconvincing could legitimately see the current data as strong evidence against supersymmetry (at least at the weak scale).
For what it's worth, I recall seeing some predictions in 2008 by Abraham Seiden for the dates when the LHC would have enough data to see various potential new physics.[1] (This was before the disaster when they first switched it on, so all of his dates are at least a couple of years early in practice.) He said that some versions of supersymmetry might be seen as early as 2009: those are (I think) the same versions that we're seeing data against these days. But he lists a date of 2017 for a "higher energy form of supersymmetry". So even before the data began to come in, everyone knew it would be quite a while before anything definitive could be said on the subject.
